STATE OF HARYANA Vs. ARUN KUMAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order proposes to decide two writ petitions, bearing CWP No. 17836 of 2011 (State of Haryana v. Arun Kumar and another) and CWP No. 14002 of 2011 (Arun Kumar v. State of Haryana and others), one having been filed by the management and another by the workman against the same impugned award dated 13.12.2010 (Annexure P -10). However, for the facility of reference, the facts are being culled out of CWP No. 17836 of 2011. The facts, which are necessary for disposal of these writ petitions, can be put into narrow compass. The respondent -workman was initially engaged on part time basis w.e.f. 1.6.1996 on the rate fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh, for the purpose of filling water in water cooler and also for storage of drinking water. His initial appointment was for six months, which is clear from Annexure P -1. Thereafter, the respondent -workman was treated as full time daily wager but on contract basis for 89 days on DC rates, as per Annexure P -2. Every time petitioner was granted appointment as Waterman for a fixed period of 89 days, as per Annexures P -3 to P -5. His contract for appointment for a fixed period of 89 days was not renewed after 12.4.1999. Respondent -workman, after a period of about five years, served a demand notice Annexure P -6 dated 17.1.2004, which was replied by the petitioner -management vide Annexure P -7 alleging that it was a belated and stale claim because of which the workman was not entitled for any relief. On merit, it was stated that present one was not a case of retrenchment but was within the scope of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short), because the termination of the service of the workman was the result of non -renewal of contract of employment on the expiry of fixed term thereof. The industrial dispute raised by the workman was referred to the learned Labour Court. Workman filed his claim statement at Annexure P -8. Petitioner -management filed its reply vide Annexure P -9, reiterating its stand earlier taken. Parties led their respective evidence. After hearing both the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner management terminated the services of the respondent -workman in violation of provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act. He was directed to be reinstated with 30% back wages. Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) THE second writ petition bearing CWP No. 14002 of 2011 was filed by the respondent -workman, seeking writ of mandamus directing the management to reinstate him in service with consequential benefits, in compliance of the impugned award passed by the learned Labour Court. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter.

(3.) PER contra, learned counsel for the respondent -workman submits that the present case would not fall within the exception clause of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. In this regard, he relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Trishla Devi v. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh,, 1999 (3) SCT 398. He further submits that the learned Labour Court committed no error of law while passing the impugned award. He submits that the learned Labour Court has rightly molded the relief granting only 30% back wages to the workman. He next contended that the learned Labour Court rightly rejected the reference on account of delay alone. In this regard, he relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karan Singh v. M/s. Executive Engineer Haryana State Marketing Board, : 2007 (4) SCT 328. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition filed by the State and for allowing the writ petition filed by the workman.