ORDER
Arun Mishra, J.
1. Petitioner assails the award passed by the Labour Court-1 Bhopal on July 7, 2001, which the Labour Court has directed reinstatement of the workman along with 25% back wages.
2. The case of the workman was that he was appointed as Peon in March 1994 and she was removed on March 15, 1997. She was not paid any retrenchment compensation. Her removal was illegal and she has rendered satisfactory service. No misconduct was committed by her.
3. The case set up by the petitioner was
that the workman was appointed on the basis of
the order issued for 59 days. There was no post
available of Peon. The workman used to absent
herself number of times. She had stopped
herself coming to the office. Since the services
of the workman were temporary, provision of
retrenchment is not attracted. The workman did
not complete 240 days in the preceding year.
She was working as casual labour w.e.f.
January 28, 1997; hence, provision of
retrenchment compensation is not attracted.
She was not a workman.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case where time bound appointment was made of 59 days, that came due to efflux (sic) of time. There is no post of Peon on which the workman could be continued. Hence, the removal could not be interlinked with. The removal was legal and the award by the Labour Court is bad in law.
5. In the reply to the statement of claim in; the special plea, it has been categorically stated by the petitioner that w. e.f. November 28, 1997 the workman was working as casual labour. The workman was put as a casual labour. It is totally an impermissible ground taken that the provision of retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act is not applicable in the case of casual workman. Initially, it appears that the petitioner was appointed by issuance of order for 59 days. She used to be given artificial breaks, however, she continued to serve from March 1994 till she was removed on March 15, 1997. If artificial breaks which were given, are to be excluded, the last appointment was not time bound as per the plea taken in the written statement before Labour Court by the petitioner. Respondent was working as casual labour. Thus, provision of Section 2(oo) and 25F of the I.D. Act is clearly attracted in the facts situation of the instant cases. The workman had rendered service for more than 240 days in each of the preceding year. Thus, her services could not be terminated without complying with the provision of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. There is no infirmity in the award passed by the Labour Court.
6. The submission that there is no sanctioned post, thus, removal order is proper, does not advance the cause of the petitioner as even if the post was not available, if a person had worked in contingency staff, he is required to be paid retrenchment compensation, in accordance with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. It is not necessary that a person should have worked on vacant sanctioned post.
7. There is no merit in the writ petition. Same is dismissed in limine.