M C D Vs. NARENDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned award dated september 18,2003 passed by the Labour Court no. IX, Karkardooma Courts, Shahdara, Delhi. The brief facts for deciding the present writ petition are that pursuant to industrial disputes raised by the respondents, the appropriate government made the following reference for adjudication as under:

(2.) THE Labour Court after taking into consideration the pleadings filed by the parties, evidence led by them and the documents filed on record, came to the conclusion that these respondents cannot be given protection of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as they did not complete 240 days of continuous service in a calendar year. However, the Labour Court found violation of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act on the part of petitioner. This finding was given by the Labour Court after referring to the cross-examination of MW-I, adduced by the petitioner, who in his cross-examination admitted the fact of appointment of some beldars during the year 1991-1992 without inviting the present respondents for their, employment on the said post of Beldars. The labour Court thus gave directions to the petitioner management to reinstate the respondents workmen with back wages to the extent of 50% as admissible to them under the industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 w. e. f. January 14,1990. Aggrieved with the said order the petitioner management has preferred the present writ petition.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents were engaged on daily wage basis for a seasonal work for a limited period of 53 days in the horticulture Department of MCD, Shahdara (North) Zone and upon completion of the said work, their services were disengaged w. e. f. January 14,1990. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it is an admitted case between the parties that respondents have not completed the requisite period of 240 days of continuous employment in a particular year so as to claim protection under Section 25-F of the industrial Disputes Act, and, therefore, the only issue which is required to be considered by this court is whether there is any violation of sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial disputes Act on the part of the petitioner. The thrust of the argument of the counsel for the petitioner with regard to Sections 25-G and 25-H of the I. D. Act is that once the respondents did not complete 240 days of service, there could not have been any question of compliance of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the I. D. Act. Counsel for the petitioner management contended that once, termination of the services of the respondents cannot be considered to be retrenchment within the meaning of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, consequently, the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H also cannot be made applicable to such workmen.