THE HARYANA SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., CHANDIGARH Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, ROHTAK AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner, Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-Corporation) for quashing the award dated 1.12.1988 Annexure P-1 passed by respondent No. 1 Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak. The facts relating to the case are that respondent No. 2 Ramesh Singh, workman was offered appointment by the petitioner-Corporation on 13.11.1984 as Seed Production Assistant on ad hoc basis in the pay scale of Rs. 600-1100. He accepted the offer and was appointed. In his appointment letter, it was made clear that his appointment was purely on ad hoc basis as a stop-gap arrangement till a regular candidate from the Employment Exchange or Government was available. Besides, the services were terminable at any time without any notice and assigning any reason. The petitioner-Corporation on 2.12.1986 terminated the services of respondent No. 2 workman. It was indicated in the order of termination that as per terms and conditions of appointment the services of respondent No. 2 were terminated with immediate effect as they were no longer required by the Corporation. This termination led to the raising of an industrial dispute and the State Government referred the matter under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the Labour Court vide its order dated 29.9.1988. The reference order was to the effect as to whether the termination of the service of Sh. Ramesh Singh was justified and in order and if not, to what relief was he entitled.

(2.) The learned Labour Court, after granting opportunity to the workman and the management to lead their respective evidence vide award dated 1.12.1986 set aside the impugned termination/non-renewal of contract and ordered reinstatement of the workman along with continuity of service and backwages as well as other resultant benefits. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner- Corporation has filed the present writ petition. It has been primarily averred that the case of the workman falls within the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act, according to which termination of the services of a workman as a result of the non-renal of contract of employment on its expiry does not amount to retrenchment and, therefore, Section 25-F of the Act is not attracted. Besides, the services of respondent No. 2 workman were dispensed with an account of non-renewal of the contract and that therefore the learned Labour Court erred in passing the impugned award Annexure P1.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the respondent and with his assistance have also gone through the records of the case. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 workman contends that the provisions of Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act are inapplicable inasmuch as there was no fixed period of contract for which the respondent-workman had been appointed. Rather the appointment order was on ad hoc basis as a stop-gap arrangement till a regular candidate from Employment Exchange or the Government was available. In order to appreciate the contention as stated in the writ petition of the petitioner-Corporation, the provision of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act may be noticed which read as under :