RAKESH KUMAR SON OF OM PARKASH Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 06.01 .2009 (Annexure P-6), vide which although the learned Labour Court, Ambala has held that the workman had completed more than 240 days in service in 12 preceding months from the date of his termination but has proceeded to hold that Sections 25-F to H of the Industrial Disputes Act would not be applicable to the claim of the petitioner as his termination would be covered by the exception (bb) to Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed as a part-time Water Carrier on 07.09.1994 in the office of the Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Pehowa. He continued to serve the respondents as part-time Water Carrier till his services were terminated on 31.03.2001. He contends that it is an admitted position that the petitioner was appointed on the basis of sponsoring of the name of the petitioner through the Employment Exchange and thereafter holding of an interview. His contention is that as the respondents have admitted that the workman had completed more than 240 days in service in 12 preceding months from the date of his termination and while terminating his services, no notice or pay in lieu thereof or retrenchment compensation was paid to him, the termination of the services of the workman thus is in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. His further contention is that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service as there was no specific stand taken by the respondents that the appointment of the petitioner was dehors the statutory Rules and, therefore, the said ground taken by the Labour Court while depriving the petitioner of the benefit of reinstatement and bringing it within the ambit of exception 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot be sustained. He, on this basis, contends that the petitioner deserves to be reinstated in service. In support of this contention, counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal,2009 (2) Law Herald 745 , Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana,2010 1 LH 487, Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation,2010 2 LH 1002 and Krishan Singh v. Executive Engineer, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Rohtak (Haryana),2010 2 LH 1057 .

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 submits that the services of the petitioner were terminated as per the directions of the Government as there was no sanctioned post in the office of Sub- Divisional Education Officer, Pehowa. As a matter of fact, the said office stood abolished by the Government and the work of the same was being looked after by the Block Education Officer, Pehowa and Distrcit Education Officer, Kurukshetra. No fresh person was employed in place of the petitioner-workman and no persons junior to the petitioner were retained in service, as alleged. His further contention is that at the time of arguments before the Labour Court, the specific plea was taken that the appointment of the petitioner was not on regular basis and he was appointed after issuance of an advertisement and following the other provisions with respect to the written test or interview as in the case of public employment. He contends that the Labour Court has rightly held the appointment of the petitioner dehors the statutory Rules and also since the office of the Sub-Divisional Education Officer stood abolished and the termination of the services of the petitioner was in accordance with his terms of appointment, the findings recorded by the Labour Court are fully justified which do not call for any interference by this Court.