Zila Parishad, Ferozepur vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda

S.S. Sudhalkar, J, (Oral)

This writ petition is filed by the employer challenging the award of the Labour Court dated December 5,2000 (copy Annexure P-12) vide which respondent No. 2 was ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity of service, however, without back wages.

Respondent No. 2 had contended that he was appointed by the petitioner as Beldar on July 9,1992 oh the pay of Rs. 1600/- per month and that his service was terminated on April 3,1993 against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"),

The case of the petitioner is that the service of respondent No. 2 was for a specific period and because of non-renewal of the same, he can not claim that he was retrenched and seek remedy under the Act.

The facts, as appear from the narration of the written statement, are that respondent No. 2 was appointed as Beldar on July 9, 1992 for 89 days, On Octobers, 1992, a fresh application was moved by the workman and he was again appointed for 89 days. Again a fresh application for renewal was moved on January 5, 1993 and respondent No. 2 was appointed for 89 days. There is no dispute that in this way, respondent No. 2 has completed 240 days of his service as held by the Labour Court. However, teamed counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in view of the limited orders and by efflux of the time itself, service of respondent No. 2 came to an end, as it was only for a particular period. He has cited the case of Zila Parishad, Fatehgarh Sahib v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Patiala 2001(1) SCT 616 P&H. It is a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench has held in that case that there may be variety of reasons compelling the employer not to renew the term of employment any further and that it will be covered u/s 2(00)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It has been held that the said termination could be held to be bad if the workman pleads and proves mala fide indulging of the employer in unfair labour practices.

However, the facts of the instant case are different. In that case, the post of Waterman on which the workman was engaged had not been abolished. In fact, the employer filled up that post on regular basis after inviting names from the Employment Exchange and also from the Soldier Board and District Welfare Department. In the present case, nothing of the sort has been shown to us having been done.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the post of Beldar was filled up after inviting names from the Employment Exchange. The services of the workman were terminated in the year 1993. Till today, no such appointment is shown to have been made. In view of the facts of this case, the appointment for 89 days period would go to show that it was the Management who indulged in unfair labour practices just to prevail over the provisions of the Act. We, therefore, do not accept the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that because of the appointment being for a limited period, respondent No. 2 can not invoke the provisions of the Act.

In view of the above reasons, this writ petition is without merit and is dismissed.

Writ petition dismissed.