INDIAN RAYON INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. BAMANIYA LAKHABHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by Indian Rayon Industries Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, challenging the judgement of the Labour Court, Junagadh, dated 10.1.2006 passed in Reference (LCJ) No. 257/1999.

(2.) THE respondent workman was engaged as temporary Draftsman initially under an appointment order dated 19.1.1995 for a fixed period of three months. Such engagement continued from time to time for nearly three and half years under separate appointment orders, when finally after completion of three months from the last order of appointment dated 10.2.1999, such engagement was not extended. He challenged such termination before the Labour Court on the ground of violation of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Before the Labour Court the employer raised the theory that workman was engaged for fixed period for the work of drafting which was specific when there was no further work available, his engagement would not be renewed. Such action would not fall within the definition of term 'retrenchment' in view of section 2(oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court by the impugned award held to the contrary, came to the conclusion that section 2(oo) (bb) would not apply since according to the employer the workman was appointed for a specific power plant, however, he had worked in different departments. According to the Labour Court, there was no evidence that work of power plant was also over. Inter -alia on such grounds, the Labour Court was persuaded to hold that disengagement of the workman was retrenchment and since the same was without following procedure required under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, same was also illegal. Resultantly, the Labour Court set aside the termination, directed reinstatement with 80% back -wages.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel Shri Mishra for the workman opposed the petition contending that the workman had except for artificial breaks, worked continuously nearly for three and half years. Fixed term appointment was a camouflage. Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act was breached. The Labour Court therefore, correctly set aside the same.