HARYANA STATE FEDERATION OF CONSUMERS COOPERATIVE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DID the petitioner retrench the workman in violation of the provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? The petitioner says that the respondents had been appointed on purely ad hoc basis and their services stood terminated on account of non-renewal of the contracts of employment. The Labour Court having rejected the plea of the Management, it has approached this Court through Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3952 and 14046 of 1991. Issues in both the petition being similar, these can be disposed of by a common order. A few facts emanating from the record of Civil Writ Petition No. 3952 of 1991 may be briefly noticed.

(2.) ON February 9, 1984 the petitioner appointed the second respondent as a Salesman for a period of 89 days on ad hoc basis. The appointment was extended from time to time. Finally, in pursuance to the request made by the respondent vide his letter dated July 10, 1986, his appointment was extended for the period w. e. f. August 4, 1986 to January 30, 1987 for six months on the fixed salary of Rs. 500/- per month. Thereafter, his services stood terminated. However, the workman raised an industrial dispute. The appropriate Government made a reference to the Labour Court. It accepted the workman's claim vide award dated April 26, 1990. A copy of this award has been produced as Annexure P-3. The Labour Court ordered the reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and full backwages. The petitioner approached this Court through Civil Writ Petition No. 8300 of 1990. Vide order dated June 4, 1990, the Motion Bench disposed of the writ petition with the following order:-"present. Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advocate. The sole argument is that the petitioners (respondents) going out of service could not be taken as retrenchment in view of the fixed term of the appointment vide Annexure P. I. No such point has been taken or argued before the Labour Court. The petitioner, if so advised may approach the Labour Court for the rectification of the mistake. The petition stands disposed of as indicated above. June 4, 1990 Sd/-I. S. Tiwana, J. Sd/-G. R. Majithia,j. "

(3.) THE petitioner, thus, approached the Labour Court. It rejected the petitioner's claim. It has consequently approached this Court through the present petition.