VIJAY KUMAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.Shukla appearing for the workman-petitioner and Mr.Gaur appearing for the management.

(2.) The only question involved in this petition is with respect to the interpretation of the appointment letter dated 1st July, 2005 and whether it would fall within exemption in Sub-section (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, "the Act"] to take the appointment out of the teeth of retrenchment and therefore compliance of Section 25-F of the Act. To understand the drift of the argument, the best document is the appointment letter itself and it is reproduced: -

(3.) The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Faridabad vide the impugned award dated 11th May, 2012 has non-suited the workman on the ground that the appointment is contractual in nature and was purely temporary and thus, the workman did not acquire any legal right to hold the post. When this finding was returned, it followed sequitur that the services of the workman were dispensed with legally and in accordance with law. For this reason alone, the reference was declined and the relief of reinstatement and consequential benefits was denied to the workman.