STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. HARMESH SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 /227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned Award dated 20.06.1989 (Annexure P -15) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and issuance of writ of certiorari. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the instant petition are to the effect that respondent no. 1 was appointed as Class -IV employee on temporary basis for the period of 89 days in the ESI Dispensary, Railmajra, District Hoshiarpur vide letter dated 17.1.1984. His services were extended from time to time for 89 days and he served the petitioner as such up to 18th January, 1987. After the expiry of 89 days, services of respondent no. 1 stood automatically terminated. For the same post, Sh. Rajinder Kumar and Sh. Jarnail Singh applied along with respondent no. 1 for their appointment as Class IV at ESI Dispensary, Railmajra. There were only two posts sanctioned as Class IV. In the public interest to cope with the public services, Sh. Rajinder Kumar and Sh. Jarnail Singh, both were selected and appointed against two sanctioned posts. Thereafter, respondent no. 1 approached the Labour Commissioner Punjab and conciliation proceedings were held and thereafter the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, under Section 10(I)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner also participated in the proceedings before the Labour Court. The petitioner filed reply to the petition of respondent no. 1. In reply, the stand of petitioner is that respondent no. 1 had been appointed for 89 days in the pay scale of Rs. 300 -430 and he had been given fresh appointment on receipt of his fresh requests and in that manner he served the petitioner till 18th of January, 1987, but with breaks. The respondent no. 1 was not in the continuous service of the petitioner and his services stood automatically terminated on the expiry of the period stipulated in the appointment letter. It was also averred that respondent no. 1 was not appointed as he was less qualified as compared to Rajinder Kumar and Jarnail Singh, subsequently appointed as Class -IV employees.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one has appeared to address arguments on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that respondent no. 1 was merely a temporary employee and his services were terminated in accordance with the appointment letter. The learned counsel has further contended that respondent no. 1 did not complete 240 days of continuous service so as to entitle him to reinstatement in service with continuity of service and half backwages. The learned counsel has further contended that the Labour Court cannot reinstate a Govt. employee who was merely temporary employee of the ESI Dispensary. The learned counsel has further contended that the impugned Award (Annexure P -15) is against law.