RAMJAS COLLEGE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 20th November, 1998, passed by the Labour Court No.II, Delhi whereby the reference was answered against the petitioner and petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent with full back wages.

(2.) Briefly, the facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this writ petition are that the respondent was appointed by the petitioner college as Laboratory Attendant on ad-hoc basis for a period of three months vide an appointment letter dated 7.8.1989. The appointment was extended from time for time for three months every time purely on ad-hoc basis and lastly the respondent was appointed vide letter dated 22.11.1990 w.e.f. 21.11.1990 for a period of three months or till the Selection Committee meets, whichever was earlier. The workman was relieved on 20.2.1991 after the expiry of period of three months. Selection Committee met on 23rd March, 1991 at 10.00 a.m. and all eligible candidates were called for interview. The respondent had also applied for the post on regular basis. Out of 29 candidates, who appeared for the interview, the Selection Committee selected six candidates as per the vacancies against permanent posts. Respondent No.2, who could not be selected for the post on regular basis raised an industrial dispute about his wrongful dismissal which was referred to the Labour Court in following terms:

(3.) The Labour Court came to the conclusion that since the respondent had completed more than 240 days of service before his termination the petitioner was liable to pay retrenchment compensation with one month's notice or notice pay in lieu thereof. Since, the same was not paid the case of the respondent was covered under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the retrenchment of the respondent was illegal and contrary to law. On this ground, the Labour Court was of the opinion that termination of any workman on whatsoever ground except those excluded under Section 2(oo), amounted to retrenchment of the workman and since, the case of the respondent workman was not covered under any of the exceptions and 240 days had been completed there was no escape from the conclusion that it was a case of retrenchment without following provisions of Section 25(F). The Labour Court also came to the conclusion that the workman was employed by the management from 10,10.1989 to 20.2.1991, the management had not given any reason why he was not appointed at the permanent post despite the post being available. The management subsequent to the termination of the respondent had filled up the posts of the Laboratory Attendant in the college. It was bound to reemploy the respondent under provisions of Section 25(H) of the I.D.Act. The Labour Court, therefore, directed the respondent to be reinstated with full back wages.