SHAHJADE S/O ABDUL KHALIQ Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Siddhh counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.K. Mukherjee and standing counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Labourer on 25.6.1982 in the respondent M/s Jeep Industrial Ltd. Allahabad. The petitioner workman claimed that his services had wrongly been terminated vide order dated 21.10.1997 w.e.f. 23.10.1997. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute. On conciliation proceedings having failed, the matter regarding validity and justification of termination of the workman was referred to Industrial Tribunal (I), UP. at Allahabad, where it was registered as adjudication case No. 24 of 1999. The order of reference is as under: Kya sewayojakon dwara apne sambandhit shramik Sri Shahjade, putra Sri Abdul Khalik ki sewain dinank 23.10.97 ke samapt kiya jana ucit tatha/athwa vadhainik hai? Yadi nahi, to sambandhit shramik kya hitlabh/anutosh (relief) pane ka adhikari hai, evam anya kis vivran sahit?

(3.) IT was also denied by the employer that the petitioner was neither a permanent workman nor was working against any permanent post; that his nature of work was also not permanent. Their case was that the termination of service of the workman contract after expiry of the limited term of engagement on account of non -renewal of contract does not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(00)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Central) as amended by Act No. 46 of 1982 w.e.f. 31.8.1984. The parties filed documentary evidence as well as produced witnesses before the labour Court in support of their case. After appreciating the pleadings, evidence and arguments of the parties, the court by the impugned award dated 22.2.2002 noticing the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Birla V.X.L. Ltd. v. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in F.L.R. 1998 (80) Page 624 as well as the decision of Division Bench in the case of Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in between Gurdaspur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Labour Court and Ors. reported in FLR 1998 (80) 762, the decision rendered by the Bombay High Court in the case of Rajan Auto Ltd. Akurdi Pune and R.P. Savani and Ors. reported in FLR 2000 (94) 524, held that there should be some evidence which would indicate an improper motive so as to enable the court to arrive at a finding of unfair labour practice and that if the temporary employment is contemned as an unfair labour practice then in other government and private industries employing temporary workman would not be able to function as need to employ temporary workman in temporary work and projects is required from time to time. All of them cannot be made permanent if they have worked on some work or some project and as such it is for the employer to manage his own affair within the legal framework without violating any provision of any limited laws.