NAND LAL Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this Petition is to the impugned award dated 28.2.2011 (P-1) passed by the learned Labour Court, Ambala declining the reference against the Workman and deciding in favour of the Management. The admitted facts are that the Petitioner was appointed as a Mali on 19.5.2003 and served the District Panchayat Bhawan, Yamuna Nagar under the employment of the office of the District Development and Panchayat Officer. He continued to serve till his services were terminated on 4.1.2008 without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"). The employment appears to have continued on 89 days basis from 2003 till the Petitioner was lastly engaged by way of extension of service for 89 days w.e.f. 4.11.2007 to 4.1.2008. The Appointment Order contained a stipulation that on the expiry of the period, his services shall stand automatically terminated. In fact, an order was passed on 3.1.2008 terminating his service. It is not disputed that no retrenchment compensation was paid and also no compliance on the provisions of Section 25-F was made and, therefore, no reasons of termination were required to be assigned nor notice issued to him before putting his services to an end. In defence, the Management contended that the case fell in the exception to Section 25-F, that is, Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. The decisions in Ghaziabad Development Authority and another v. Ashok Kumar and another, 2008 4 SCC 261; Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula, 2008 1 SCC 575; M.P. Administration v. Tribhuwan, 2007 9 SCC 748; Uttranchal Forest Development Corporation v. M.C. Joshi,, 2007 2 SCC(L&S) 813; and State of M.P. and others v. Lalit Kumar Verma, 2007 1 SCC 575, were relied upon to deny the claim.

(2.) It was the further contention of the Management that the Workman's initial and subsequent repeated appointments were contrary to Rule and in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. The Petitioner was not appointed against a sanctioned post nor through a legally valid process of selection. A perusal of the statement of claim by way of Written Statement of the Management dated 13.10.2008 reveals that the defence of appointment contrary to Rule was not set up in defence. The Management relied upon the bare provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) alone.

(3.) The defence of appointment contrary to Rule has been set up for the first time in defence of the Writ Petition through the Written Statement dated 13.12.2011 filed in this Court. Therefore, this defence cannot be permitted to be set up to defeat the claim of the Workman.