THE PUNJAB STATE COOP. MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY stated, Harbans Singh, respondent No. 2 was appointed as Artificial Insemination Assistant at Milkfed Project, Faridkot vide appointment letter dated 1.8.1984, Annexure P1, purely on adhoc basis for a period of 89 days. In terms of the appointment letter, upon the expiry of 89 days, his services were to stand automatically terminated. Accordingly, after the initial term of 89 days, the petitioner was re -engaged on 89 days' basis over a certain period of time. His services having been terminated, respondent No. 2 raised an industrial dispute and a settlement was entered into on 27.10.1986 before the Labour -cum -Conciliation Officer between the petitioner -Management and respondent No. 2 in the light of which he was re -engaged in service. Services of respondent No. 2 were thereafter terminated on 24.4.1988. Such termination of service of respondent No. 2 w.e.f. 24.4.1988 has been held to be bad in law by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda vide award dated 17.6.1992, Annexure P10, and he has been held entitled to re -instatement with continuity of service and back wages w.e.f. 18.7.1988 i.e. the date of the demand notice. Further directions have been issued by the Labour Court that in case there is no post of Artificial Insemination Assistant, then the Management would accommodate the workman/respondent No. 2 on some other post of equivalent grade.

(2.) IT is towards impugning such Labour Court award dated 17.6.1992 that the instant writ petition has been filed.

(3.) PER contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 has submitted that the award dated 17.6.1992 at Annexure P2 is well -reasoned and does not call for any interference. Reliance has been placed upon two Division Bench judgments of this Court in President Zila Parishad, Panipat v. Presiding Officer, Industrial -cum -Labour Court, Panipat, : 2001 (3) CLR 713 and Zila Parishad, Ferozepur v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda, : 2001 (3) SCT 198 to contend that the petitioner -Management has resorted to an unfair labour practice of having engaged the workman repeatedly on 89 days basis and as such, the decision of the Labour Court in having held the termination of respondent No. 2 to be bad in law and having directed reinstatement with continuity in service would be a valid order. That apart, learned counsel has also submitted that the issue as regards the post of Artificial Insemination Assistant having been abolished and there being no such regular post was a plea that was being raised for the first time before the writ Court. Accordingly, prayer for dismissal of the writ petition was made.