C.W.P. No.11741of 2002 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB
AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.11741of 2002
Date of Decision: 09.11.2009
The Bathinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd.,
Bhatinda Milk Plant through the Managing Director
.....Petitioner
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda and another
....Respondents
Present: Mr. Alok Jagga, Advocate for
Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
None for respondent No.2.
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
-.-
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)
1. The writ petition challenges the award directing
reinstatement of the workman when he claimed that he had 240
days of service and that his termination was not in compliance of
Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court
found that the workman did not have 240 days but held, however,
that the termination violated Section 25-G of the Industrial
Disputes Act.
2. Aggrieved against the direction for reinstatement, the
management is before this Court assailing the award on the
C.W.P. No.11741of 2002 -2-
ground that the engagement had been under a contract for specific
period and the termination that took effect was not in the nature of
retrenchment under which alone either the provisions of Section
25-F or G could apply. Learned counsel refers me to the initial
order of appointment (Annexure P-1) where he had been
appointed as an unskilled worker for a temporary requirement that
had arisen in the Account Section for specific period from
23.09.1987 to 22.12.1987. On 15.12.1987, an order was passed
relieving the petitioner on 22.12.1987 as originally stipulated
(Annexure P-2). But, however, a fresh engagement was made for
the period from 14.01.1988 to 31.03.1988. A subsequent order
was also issued (Annexure P-4) that recorded the fact that the
workman had been terminated from service as per the terms and
conditions of the contract of employment. On a third occasion, a
fresh engagement was again made from 07.09.1988 to 06.12.1988
and an order was passed on 03.12.1988 that the workman was
relieved from duty on 06.12.1988. It is this termination that gives
rise to a dispute that it was illegally done. It shall be noticed that
it was not the contention of the workman that there was any unfair
labour practice, but the manner of engagement through contracts
that stipulated specific period was an admitted fact. Learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the temporary
engagements had been done by the management at the time when
the establishment was still in its infancy and all the engagements
C.W.P. No.11741of 2002 -3-
had been only on temporary or ad hoc basis depending on the
exigencies of availability of work. If the workman’s engagement
could be sourced to specific contracts, the termination that results
from the completion of period would not qualify for the
expression “retrenchment” and it shall be excepted therefrom by
virtue of the provisions contained in Section 2(oo) (bb) of the
Industrial Disputes Act. The direction for reinstatement for
alleged non-compliance of Section 25-F is under the
circumstances found to be wrong and accordingly set aside.
3. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be however no
direction as to costs.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
November 09, 2009
Pankaj*