NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. ANIL KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the Award of Labour Court VII dated 25.3.2000 whereby the Labour Court had directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 50% back wages.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that the respondent was appointed for a fixed period of six months on 29.9.1992. On expiry of six months on 28.3.1993, his services were extended by a letter dated 7.4.1993 for a another period of six months i.e up to 30.6.93. The contention of the respondent before Tribunal was that even after the expiry of his extended period he continued to work without any formal letter up to 28.7.1993. Thereafter, he was not allowed to work and his services were terminated. The learned Tribunal observed that the respondent workman continuously worked from 28.9.1992 to 28.7.1993, hence the plea taken by the management that services of the workman came to an end by efflux of time was wrong and since he was allowed to work despite non extension of the period up to 28.2.1993, the act of the management in not allowing the workman to work from 28.7.1993 amounted to retrenchment under Section 25F read with 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( for short the "Act").

(3.) Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act which reads as under:-