CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Chief Administrator, Haryana urban Development Authority, has sought quashing of the award dated 6.10.1993, Annexure P -3, whereby respondent No. 2 has been ordered to be reinstated w.e.f. the date of his termination of service with continuity of service as well as has been awarded 50% of the back wages.

(2.) The primary contention of the counsel is that the Tribunal erred in law in invoking the provisions of Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act as it was not a case of termination of service. The respondent -workman was appointed each time for 89 days and his services stood automatically expired on completion of 89 days and so such a case will come within the purview of Sec. 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act'). Besides this, it urged that the HUDA was not an industry and so the workman was not covered under the definition of workman. Examined thus, the award of the Labour Court is contrary to the provisions of the Act and thus unsustainable in law. In support of his submission, the counsel relied upon the judicial pronouncements of this Court in cases reported as State of Punjab v/s. Ram , (1993) SCT 127 and Surendra Kumar Gyani v/s. State of Rajasthan, 1992 (3) SCT 498.

(3.) Before examining the legal submission made, it would be appropriate to keep In mind the facts which led to the referring of the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court Under Sec. 10(1)(c) of the Act. The respondent -workman sought reference of the dispute on the ground that he had been working as a Clerk in the office of the Haryana Urban Development Authority at Panipat from 8.9.3987 to 10.8.1988 and had been getting salary at Rs. 1196/ - per month till his services were terminated on August 10, 1988 without any notice and without any information. It was further stated that he has completed 240 days without any break in service and otherwise too his work was found to be satisfactory as per experience certificate issued by the authority concerned. This way the order of termination is malafide, without jurisdiction, illegal and thus liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the workman prayed for reinstatement with retrospective effect with back wages and continuity of service.