MAHARISHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR SHRI S P VATS Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 27.08.2008 (Annexure-P-4), vide which the reference had been answered in favour of the respondent No. 2/Workman, holding him entitled to reinstatement on his previous post in the same status with continuity of service and 50% back wages from 25.08.2006.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner/University contends that the respondent No. 2/Workman was appointed as a Driver on purely contractual basis initially for 89 days, vide letter dated 03.07.2001 (Annexure-P-1), wherein it was specifically stated that his engagement could be terminated earlier to the time of 89 days without any notice and the said appointment would not confer any right upon the respondent/Workman of appointment to any other post in the University. It is further specified that on expiry of the contractual period, the services would stand automatically terminated. He contends that thereafter, although, the respondent/Workman was from time to time allowed to work with the petitioner/University, i.e., from 26.11.2001 to 22.02.2002, 18.03.2002 to 16.04.2002, and from 17.04.2003 to 14.07.2003, but on the same terms and conditions as specified in the appointment letter (Annexure-P-1). As the respondent/Workman had not completed more than 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination, i.e., 14.07.2003, a specific finding had been returned by the Labour Court in its impugned Award. The only ground, which had weighed with the Tribunal, while granting the respondent/Workman the benefit of reinstatement in service, was violation of Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). He contends that the approach of the Labour Court in coming to this conclusion was totally devoid of merit as the Labour Court had proceeded to hold that the adjustment of three Class-IV employees of the staff, who were peons but temporarily assigned duties of Drivers on the vehicles by the Vice Chancellor. He contends that the said interpretation put forth by the Labour Court is not sustainable. His contention is that after the termination of the services of the respondent/Workman, two regular posts of drivers were advertised, in which respondent/Workman also participated in the selection process, but was not selected and, therefore, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, have not been violated by the petitioner/University, which would entitle the respondent/Workman the benefit of reinstatement in service, as has been ordered by the Labour Court. His further contention is that the appointment of the respondent/Workman was covered by the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act as it was for a specified period and, therefore, it cannot be termed as retrenchment as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which would entitle the respondent/Workman reinstatement in service.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for respondent/Workman has vehemently argued that the services of the employees of the petitioner/University are covered by the Maharishi Dayanand University Service and Conduct Rules for Non Teaching Employees (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). He contends that the permanent posts and temporary posts are defined in Rules 2, 8, and 18 of the Rules. His further contention is that the temporary and permanent services are provided in Rule 10 and the method of appointment in Rule 12 of the said Rules. Rule 14.1 of the Rules provides for the seniority to be maintained. All these go to show that the respondent/Workman was appointed on temporary basis and, therefore, the termination of the services of the respondent/Workman was not in accordance with law. He submits that the Award was passed by the Labour Court by stressing that the work of drivers was available with the petitioner/University, which should have been offered to the respondent/Workman as provided under Section 25H of the Act. Since the same had not been provided to the respondent/Workman nor any offer had been made to that effect, it violates Section 25H of the Act. Thus, the Award passed by the Labour Court is fully justified, which does not call for any interference by this Court.