BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD Vs. RAKESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality of award dated 29.5.1995 passed by Labour Court-VII, Delhi. The factual background in brief is as under.

(2.) The respondent was appointed as comptist on 29.9.1989 by the petitioner initially for a period of three months for doing totaling in the ledger and preparing summaries of the ledger for the year 1986-87. Initially approval was given by the competent authority for appointment of daily wager for a period of three months. After the computation of accounts for the year 1986- 87, the work of computation of accounts for the year 1987-88 was required to be completed. Consequently three months' more approval was given by the competent authority. The appointment of the respondent was extended in this manner up to 20.9.1990. However, since no extension was granted after 20.9.1990, the services of the respondent were dispensed with. The respondent raised an industrial dispute alleging that he has been retrenched without following procedure of provisions of Section 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act( hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and, therefore, his retrenchment was illegal. He claims reinstatement with full back wages. The petitioner took the plea before the Industrial Tribunal that the appointment of respondent was for a specific purpose and for a specific period and the moment the project/purpose was over, the services of the respondent were not required and no extension was given. It was not a case of retrenchment but the case fell under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. The Industrial Tribunal concluded that case of the respondent was not covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act since the respondent had completed 240 days within a period of 12 calender months, counting backward, it was a case of retrenchment. It was also observed that the management has not proved that work for which the workman was employed was not still continuing. The duty, which was the workman was performing, was not in existence.

(3.) A perusal of testimony of MW1 would show that the petitioner's witness had specifically stated that the respondent was employed for totaling work of ledger and summaries in respect of sales accounts for the year 1987-88. He was initially appointed for three months. Thereafter, his appointment was extended from time to time. No suggestion was put to this witness that the work for which the respondent was appointed was still continuing. The only suggestion given to him was that the respondent worked from 29.9.1989 to 20.9.1990.