ZILLA PARISHAD Vs. MORESHWAR VITHOBAJI MENDHEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition takes an exception to the order dated 31-1-1991 passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur, in Revision (ULPA) No. 96 of 1990 whereby the revision was allowed and the order dated 1-2-1990 passed by the Labour Court in Complaint (ULPA) No. 384 of 1986 was modified and it was declared that by terminating the services of the complainant, the respondents have engaged in unfair labour practice under Item No. I of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short the Act) and directing the respondents to reinstate the complainant/respondent No. 1 in service with continuity of service and pay full back wages from 15-5-1986 till the date of reinstatement.

(2.) RELEVANT facts are as under: respondent No. 1 /complainant was appointed as Waterman with effect from 4-12-1984 and he joined his duty from 5-12-1984. He was in continuous employment of the petitioner since then till 15-5-1986 when his services were terminated without compliance of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short I. D. Act ). One Harichandra was appointed in lieu of the respondent No. 1 and since the termination of the complainant was stated to be illegal, he filed a Complaint (ULPA) No. 384 of 1986 before the Labour court. The Labour Court framed the issues, parties adduced evidence and then on considering the evidence the Labour Court held that the complainant was not selected for the post of Waterman from amongst the 400 candidates, after written test and oral interview, though he was in continuous employment of the petitioner from 4-12-1984 till 15-5-1986. The Labour Court also held that the complainant was appointed only for 29 days in each month during the aforesaid period and, therefore, declared that the petitioners engaged in unfair labour practice and directed the petitioners to pay compensation for the retrenchment equal to the wages for six months at the rate lastly drawn by the complainant, but refused to reinstate him. Being aggrieved by this order, the respondent No. 1 carried revision before the Industrial Court and the Industrial Court by the order dated 31-1-1991 modified the order passed by the Labour Court and directed reinstatement of respondent No. 1 with continuity in service with full back wages from 15-5-1986. This order is under challenge in this petition.

(3.) MRS. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that the provisions of section 25-F of the I. D. Act are applicable in this case and the termination of respondent No. 1 does not amount to retrenchment. She pointed out that as per section 2 (oo) read with section 25-F of I. D. Act, the respondent no. 1 was appointed on contract and as a result of non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman, on its expiry of such contract being terminated under stipulation, does not come within the meaning of retrenchment. She contended that respondent No. 1 was appointed for 29 days only at each time and on expiry of 29 days the contract was not renewed after 15-5-1986. Thus, there was no retrenchment and consequently the provisions of I. D. Act do not apply and this aspect of the matter has been totally ignored by the Industrial Court. She further contended that the Labour Court has correctly held that the respondent No. 1 was not a permanent employee duly selected in the written test and oral interview and, as such, his services were liable to be terminated automatically on expiry of the aforesaid period. She further contended that the Labour Court correctly granted compensation holding that the respondent No. 1 was not entitled to the relief of reinstatement or any other relief. She further contended that the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court, in these circumstances, is not sustainable in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside and that of the Labour court to be restored.