PRITAM SINGH Vs. CANCER HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by an award passed by the Labour Court dated 16.1.2004 by which his termination has not been interfered with. In the present case, the petitioner was appointed as Ward Boy with effect from 4.10.1979 at Cancer Hospital and Research Institute, Gwalior, which is a trust registered under the Provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Trust Act. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Ward Boy with effect from 4.10.1979 and served the respondent no. 1 Institute upto 31.8.1997 i.e. almost for a period of 18 years. As per the averments made in the writ petition which are also not denied by the respondents, the appointment order was for a fixed period and after completion of one year's service fresh appointment was issued from time to time. Annexure P/12 is one such agreement executed between the petitioner and respondent no. 1 appointing him on a fixed salary for a period of one year. As the petitioner was discontinued by the respondent no. 1 and provisions of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act (Standing Orders) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the 'I.D. Act') as well as the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not complied with, the petitioner submitted an application under Section 2-A of the I.D. Act before Conciliation Officer, Gwalior, raising an industrial dispute for conciliation. As the conciliation resulted in failure, a reference was raised before the Labour Court on 3.4.1999 and the workman submitted the statement of claim before the Labour Court and a reply was also filed on behalf of the management. The respondent no.1 did not examine any witness. However, submitted the contract agreement in evidence. The Labour Court after examining the matter came to the conclusion that the appointment was issued with effect from 1.4.1977 as the period has come to an end, it is not a case of illegal retrenchment and therefore, the question of compliance of Section 25-F of the I.D.Act does not arise.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents which are produced before the Labour Court was having certain interpolation as the date i.e.1.3.1997 and the period of six months was inserted later on. In fact, when the contract was signed, there was no such condition that he is being continued for a period of six months.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently argued that the matter does not fall within the meaning of illegal retrenchment, as the petitioner was appointed on a fixed tenure basis and from time to time his appointment was renewed on fixed term basis and his services have not been continued after expiry of the period as per the agreement. The counsel for the respondents has further stated that the award delivered by the Labour Court does not warrant any interference in the facts and circumstances of the case.