GENERAL MANAGER Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR MUDULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Bahali, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner (management). He submits, impugned is award dtd. 30/6/2023 made by the labour Court, illegally and with material irregularities in finding that termination of opposite party (workman) by not renewing the contract was neither legal nor justified. Consequently, direction for reinstatement and payment of back wages at 30% are also to be set aside and quashed.

(2.) He draws attention to the contract, under which opposite party was appointed. It is dtd. 1/3/2012. We reproduce below clauses 1, 2 and 9.

(3.) Mr. Bahali submits, opposite party at trial could not dispute above facts. In the circumstances, finding in the award that there had been retrenchment without following provisions in, inter alia, Sec. 25-F in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is perverse. Without prejudice he submits, the workman cannot claim to be covered by the Act of 1947, as he is covered by provisions in Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955.