MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LUDHIYANA Vs. RAM PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted. The respondent was appointed by the appellant on contract for a period of one year as a tubewell operator/tubewell driver. On the termination of his services, he raised a dispute and the matter was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court for determination. The Labour Court by its award noted "admittedly he (the workman) did not possess the requisite qualifications for the appointment as tubewell operator/tubewell driver. It is now clear that he was appointed on contract basis." Despite this finding, however, the Labour Court was of the view that since the work was still in existence, the respondent was entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and 50% back wages.

(2.) THE writ petition of the appellant was dismissed by the High Court by holding that there was no contract between the appellant and the respondent so as to exempt the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. THE High Court granted relief to the respondent on the ground that the respondent had worked for 240 days in the 12 calendar months preceding his retrenchment and, therefore, the termination of his services was in violation of the Section 25-F of the Act.

(3.) SECTION 2(oo)(bb) of the Act clearly provides that the provisions relating to retrenchment did not include, inter alia, termination of services of a workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein.