MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, PATHANKOT Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 23.1.2001(Annexure P/1) whereby respondent no.2-workman had been reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of order of his termination dated 1.9.1995.

(2.) The workman in his demand notice dated 30.1.1997 raised the claim that he was appointed as Pump Operator in July, 1993 and had worked till 30.8.1995. He had been asked to enter into a service contract thereafter and on his refusal his services were dispensed with without any notice, notice pay and retrenchment compensation. Having put in more than 240 days of service, he was entitled to reinstatement and it was pleaded that his juniors namely Ramesh Chander and Jujhar Singh were made regular and new hands were recruited after termination of his services. He filed Civil Writ Petition No.16150 of 1995 before this Court seeking regularisation of his services and the same was dismissed on 12.8.1996. The defence of the petitioner-department was that vide resolution No.173 dated 16.9.1993 labourer were engaged for a specific period under a contract initially for a period of one year and the scheme had expired on 15.9.1995. The workman had stopped to perform his duties and thereafter he did not turn up to work and sign on the subsequent contract as the work under the scheme did not finish as provided. The workman filed Civil Writ Petition No.16150 of 1995 in this Court seeking regularisation of services which was dismissed on 12.8.1996. The provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act was relied upon as it was a contractual appointment. It was also denied that any body was made regular and new hands were recruited and there was no violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(3.) After examining the evidence on record and the statement of management witness MW-1 Desh Bandhu, SO, the Labour Court noticed that the workman had worked from July, 1993 to 30.8.1995 as admitted by the management witnesses in his cross examination and also the factum that there was no notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation was given. The defence that the workman was initially appointed for a particular period was also rejected on the ground that there was nothing on record to show so. Accordingly, it was held that the management was wanting to get some new contract executed and since the workman had refused to sign the same they dispensed with the services of the workman, thus, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were violated. In such circumstances, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages was ordered.