RANDHIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Randhir Singh after passing the prescribed trade test in motor mechanic joined in July 1982 and had done the apprenticeship training by attending Punjab Roadways, Nawan Shehar from April 12, 1983, to April 11, 1984. He was awarded National Apprenticeship Certificate and was appointed on Nov. 3, 1985 on daily wages. When not allowed to do his duties with effect from Sept. 26, 1986 he approached this Court in the writ filed by him under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying that in case there was any order terminating his services by the respondents, the same may be quashed and in case there was no such order, the respondents be directed not to stop him from attending to his work. He lost his cause before the single Bench when his writ petition as dismissed on April 6, 1989. Hence the present appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) The admitted facts reveal that after doing his apprenticeship in the Punjab Roadways Nawan Shehar from April 12,1983 to April 11,1984, the petitioner was appointed on Nov. 3,1985, on daily wages. Thereafter he received interview letter and was initially appointed for a period of 89 days with effect from Jan. 31, 1986. The letter of appointment Annexure P3 clearly reveals that the appointment of the petitioner was on temporary basis and that he was sponsored by the Employment Exchange Nawan Shehar for 89 days. The period of appointment of petitioner was extended vide letter number 8249-50/ECW for a further period of 89 days and yet thereafter without there being any break in service, the same was extended by another 89 days vide letter No. 11392-93/ECW. On Sept. 1, 1986 vide letter No. 15975/ECW yet another extension was given to the petitioner but he was not allowed to do his duties after Sept. 25,1986. In paragraph 11 of the petition, it has been pleased that the petitioner in any case had completed more than 240 days of service and was entitled to protection of Industrial Disputes as his services could not be terminated especially when two persons namely Daler Singh and Shingara Singh who were appointed on Sept. 25,1986 were allowed to continue to work. In the corresponding para of the written statement, the respondents admitted that the contents of para 11 were correct to the extent that the petitioner had completed 240 days on daily wages but they denied that Shingara Singh, Gurmit Singh and Daler Singh were appointed on Sept. 25, 1986. In respect of averment of the petitioner that he was not allowed to do his duties after Sept. 25,1986, it has been pleaded by the respondents that since the petitioner was engaged only for a specific period of 25 days upto Sept. 25, 1986 there was no question for him to have continued in service after the fixed period.

(3.) From the pleadings aforesaid, thus, it was abundantly clear that even though the petitioner had continuously worked for more than 240 days yet he was shown the door without complying with the provisions of Sec. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned single Judge before whom the matter came up for final disposal by observing that "no order of termination could be passed in view of the fact that the petitioner was employed for a fixed term and after its expiry he automatically ceased to be in service" had put the controversy at rest and dismissed the petition.