GURU JAMBHESHWAR UNIVERSITY Vs. SATPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of a bunch of twenty one Civil Writ Petitions Nos.8946, 8959, 8994, 9034, 9344, 9364, 10596, 12388, 13599, 19009, 20173 of 2002, 180, 244, 711, 1423, 1456, 2881, 2895, 3234, 3246 and 3259 of 2003 in which common questions of law and fact arise. Since the arguments were addressed in CWP 180 of 2003, facts are being taken from this case.

(2.) SATPAL respondent had been employed as a clerk in the office of the Registrar of Guru Jambheshwar University, Hisar (for short the University). He was appointed as daily wager for a period of 89 days w.e.f. 9.11.1995 to 6.2.1996. This appointment was further extended from time to time and by letter dated 3.7.1997 the Vice Chancellor again appointed him on contract basis for another period of 89 days making it clear that his sngagement shall not entitled him to claim regularisation of his services or even a regular pay -scale. The respondent had also been informed "that in case of vacancy having been filled up by a normal procedure before the expiry of period of above contract, you shall cease to be in position forthwith". It is, thus, clear that the University was making regular appointment to the posts of clerks and pending such regular selection, some daily wagers had been appointed and some on contract basis for the purpose of carrying on the office work and the condition of their employment was that they would continue to work till regular selections were made. It is not in dispute that the regular selections have been made in which Satpal Singh respondent also participated but he could not be selected as he failed to qualify even in the typing test. When the regularly selected persons were appointed, the services of the temporary employees like Satpal Singh respondent were terminated. This termination gave rise to an industrial dispute and the same was referred for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hisar. On receipt of notice from the Labour Court, the University and Satpal Singh workman filed their statements of claim. In the written statement filed on behalf of the University it was pleaded that the workman had been employed on daily wages in the first instance and thereafter he was given a contractual employment with a clear stipulation that such employment was to continue till regular selection was made and since the workman could not get selected in the regular selection his services were properly terminated in accordance with the terms contained in the letter of his appointment. It was also pleaded on behalf of the University that the termination of the workman did not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) inasmuch as his services had been terminated in accordance with the terms contained in the letter of appointment and, therefore the provisions of S.2(oo)(bb) of the Act were attracted. Pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues: -

(3.) SHRI G.K. Chatrath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the workman in one of the writ petitions, referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Bhikku Ram v. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal -cum -LaboUr Court, Rohtak, 1998 (1) RSJ 703 : (1995 LIC 2448) to contend that the action of the employer in giving repeated appointments to the workman amounted to an unfair labour practice and, therefore, the award was liable to be quashed. We have gone through the judgment in Bhikku Ram 's case (supra) and find that the facts therein are different from those in the present case. In Bhikku Ram 's case the workman had been appointed on 29.6.1984 for 89 days initially and after giving notional breaks he was repeatedly appointed. This process continued till 24.6.1987 when his services were finally terminated. In the facts and circumstances of that case this Court came to the conclusion that the action of the Management in giving notional breaks amounted to an unfair labour practice and that the provisions of S.25 -F of the Act had to be complied with. Since the employer deliberately employed the workman on 89 days basis repeatedly without regularizing his services and terminated his employment, the Court did not accept the plea that the termination was brought about on the expiry of the contract of employment so as to take it outside the purview of "retrenchment". In the case in hand, the process of regular selection had been initiated and till it was going on the workman was employed on 89 days basis with a clear understanding that when the regular selection is made his services would be terminated. This is precisely what happened and when the regularly selected persons came to be appointed the workman was asked to leave the service. The workman also participated in the process of regular selection and the action of the University cannot be more fair than the one it adopted. The dictum of Bhikku Ram 's case 1995 LIC 2448 (supra) is, therefore, not applicable. No other point has been raised. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed, the impugned awards of the Labour Court set aside and the orders passed by the University terminating the services of the workman upheld. There is no order as to costs. Petition allowed.