THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HARYANA POLICE, HOUSING COURT, ROHTAK Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ROHTAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the employer is challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 14.7.2000 vide which respondent No. 2 was ordered to be reinstated in service with 40% back wages.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent No. 2 was appointed only for a period of six months for a particular work and when that work was over he could not continue. The appointment order is at Annexure P/2 which is as under : -

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 was employed only for the construction work at Meham. Though the petitioner might have been engaged for work at Meham, he was given some other work also after that work was over, therefore, his appointment cannot be restricted for that particular work.