STATE OF HARYANA Vs. HARI RAM AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 06.06.2000 (Annexure-P-12), passed by the Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Labour Court"), wherein the reference had been answered in favour of the respondent No. 1/Workman (hereinafter referred to as "the Workman"), holding him entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner/Management (hereinafter referred to "the Management") contends that the Workman was appointed on 21.04.1995 on 89 days basis and thereafter, the Workman was engaged on daily wage basis temporarily for 89 days with effect from 21.04.1995 to 18.07.1995, then after a day's break from 20.07.1995 to 16.10.1995 and then again after one day break from 18.10.1995 to 14.01.1996 and thereafter again engaged after a day's break from 16.01.1996 to 14.04.1996 and then again after a day's break from 16.04.1996 to 13.07.1996 and ultimately from 15.07.1995 to 25.10.1996. He on this basis contends that all through the appointment, which had been given to the Workman, were on pure contractual basis. The C.W.P. No. 7983 of 2002. -2- period was specified, i.e., 89 days and he continued as such. His services were dis-continued in the light of the Instructions dated 09.01.1996 (Annexure-P-8) issued by the Government of Haryana, according to which no daily wager was to be appointed by the Departments in future. He, therefore, contends that the termination of services of the Workman would be covered by the provisions of Section 2 (oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), which would not amount to retrenchment. The findings, thus, given by the Labour Court that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act have not been complied with, cannot be sustained. He, however, admits that at the time of termination of service of the Workman, no notice for termination or pay in lieu thereof nor any retrenchment compensation was paid.

(3.) None has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1/Workman.