SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER Vs. RANGANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, Electricity Corporation, an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the award dated 26.12.2006 in IDA 73/2003 of the Labour Court at Chikmagalur directing reinstatement of the respondent to his original position within two months from the date of publication of the award with 50% of back wages from the date of refusal of employment till the date of reinstatement has presented this petition. There is no dispute that the petitioner engaged the services of the respondent as an Office Attendant on contract basis w.e.f. 3.10.2000 for a period upto 31.3.2001 on payment of consolidated monthly wage of Rs. 1,500/- in terms of the contract Ex. M1, and on its expiry, from 1.4.2001 onwards was engaged on monthly basis upto 27.9.2003 whence his service was dispensed with. Respondent instituted a petition under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short 'ID Act', registered as IDA 73/2003 on the file of the Labour Court at Chikmagalur alleging illegal termination due to violation of Section 25F of the Act. That petition was opposed by filing counter statement of the petitioner-Corporation, on notice, inter alia, denying the fact that petitioner was appointed against a permanent vacancy though was engaged on contract basis, on monthly consolidated wage of Rs. 1,500/-, through an agency and not directly by the petitioner. According to the petitioner there was neither regular salary nor pay scale fixed by which wages were paid to the respondent, hence it was asserted that before terminating the service of the respondent there was no necessity to hold domestic enquiry.

(2.) The Labour court in the premise of pleadings of parties framed the following two issues:

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the reported opinions of the Apex Court to contend that the respondent when not recruited against a sanctioned post, in accordance with the Recruitment Rules, but when engaged on contract basis as an 'Office Attendant' is disentitled to reinstatement much less back wages. Learned counsel hastens to add that in a catena of decisions of the Apex Court in almost identical facts and circumstances it is held that even if the workman proves to have completed 240 days of continuous service within a period of 12 months immediately preceding the termination, it is not axiomatic for the Labour Court to direct reinstatement and if termination is in violation of the law relating to retrenchment would be entitled to compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. Learned counsel further submits that since there is no sanctioned post of Office Attendant in the petitioner-Organisation, reinstating the respondent to that non-existent post is impermissible.