VIJAY KUMAR Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 3.9.2013 (Annexure P/3) whereby the Labour Court, Bathinda has declined the reference of the petitioner-workman on the ground that he had failed to show that he had completed 240 days preceding his termination in a calendar year. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Labour Court was in grave error since the case of the petitioner was not only violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") but also violation of provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act since the juniors have continued, though the services of the petitioner-workman have been dispensed with on 6.1.1996. It is accordingly contended that in view of the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H, the principle of last come first go was to be followed and the offer of re-appointment was to be given first to the petitioner as per provisions of Section 25-H of the Act.

(2.) After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the submission of counsel for the petitioner. Specific case of the respondent-management was that it was a case of contract coming to an end on the completion of 89 days since the petitioner had been appointed as Pharmacist from 10.10.1995 to 6.1.1996. After completion of said 89 days, he was relieved from duties, therefore, provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act would be attracted. There is no quarrel with the said proposition that the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act provide for an exception clause that in case of non-renewal of contract of the employment between the employer and the employee it would not amount to the definition of retrenchment. Sections 25-G and 25-H uses the word 'retrenchment' and therefore, in view of exclusion clause no benefit can be granted to the petitioner. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Municipal Council Samrala v. Raj Kumar, 2006 3 SCC 81: examined the provisions of the said section and held that it contemplates two parts and under the second part, the contract of employment could be terminated under the stipulation contained. Relevant portion of the judgment read as under:

(3.) The respondent-management had acted as per the terms of the contract inter se the parties and the contract came to an end on the basis of 89 days. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled for any protection under the provisions of Section 25G and 25H of the Act as there was no retrenchment of the petitioner. Accordingly, there is no ground to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the present writ petition is dismissed in limine.