CHANDIGARH SPORTS COUNCIL Vs. BAIJ NATH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are intra-court appeals, under Clause X of the Letters Patent, against a judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge dated 10.12.2013, vide which the civil writ petitions filed by the appellant-Management against the award rendered by the Labour Court, were dismissed by a common order. What was in issue before the learned Single Judge was an award dated 10.07.2012, vide which the workmen were ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and 20% back wages.

(2.) We may briefly notice as to what indeed has led the parties to the present stage and thus facts are being culled out from LPA No.292 of 2014. The workman was engaged by the Management as Peon-cum-Mali on 04.08.2000. As is made out from the records, he was afforded repeated appointments for a period of 89 days each, but he had rendered about four years of service when his services were brought to an end on 27.03.2004. Being aggrieved, he raised an industrial dispute and assailed his termination. Labour Court, on an analysis of the matter in issue and material on record, concluded that the workman had indeed worked for a period of 240 days in twelve preceding calendar months, before his services were brought to an end and thus, his termination was in breach of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. Accordingly, the workman was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service. He was awarded 20% back wages, since in his cross-examination he had testified that post termination, he was engaged in tailoring job in his house.

(3.) Learned Single Judge, on a comprehensive consideration of the matter in issue and material on record, noticed that the respondent-workman had completed 31/2 years of continuous service, except the notional breaks. Ex.W4 revealed that an advertisement dated 27.11.2013 was published in the 'Tribune' for the purpose of making public appointment, which showed that the work was still in existence. The argument that was sought to be advanced on behalf of the Management that, the matter in hand was a simple case of non-renewal of contract of service and was thus covered by the exception clause i.e. (bb) to Section 2(oo) of the Act, was repelled as neither such a plea was set up before the Labour Court nor any evidence was adduced in this regard. So much so, learned Single Judge observed that no such argument was even raised before the Labour Court. Rather, it was observed that the matter in hand was a flagrant instance of unfair labour practice as the Management was bent upon to get rid of the workman despite availability of work.