RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The workman has filed this writ petition challenging the award dated May 23, 2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala. The reference has been declined and the relief has been denied. The Labour Court has held in para. 13 as follows:-

(2.) The contesting party is the Zila Parishad, Fatehgarh Sahib. It is argued by Mr. Bhandohal appearing for the Zila Parishad that the petitioner was employed as Peon vide appointment Letter Ex.M4 under the Jawahar Rozgar Yojna, which is funded by the Government of India and this project was executed at the level of local bodies. The wages were paid on D.C. rates as prescribed from time to time but the money came from contingency funds as granted by the Central Government to run the Jawahar Rozgar Yojna at Fatehgarh Sahib. The petitioner served for about one year and 3 months from March 16, 1994 up to June 1, 1995. Mr. Sammi appearing for the petitioner submits that no period or time was fixed in the appointment letter Ex.M4 and therefore, the case does not fall in contractual employment or in the exceptions of Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(3.) Even assuming this argument can be sustained the employment is against a scheme paid from the contingency funds and when the plea of the respondent-Zila Parishad stands established by the evidence that the grant had dried up and therefore, it is not possible for the Zila Partishad to pay salary or wages from its own pocket because the petitioner was not an employee of the Zila Parishad and was engaged purely dependent on continuation of work in the Jawahar Rozgar Yojna and flow of funds. In any case, the period of service is far too brief and in the totality of facts and circumstances to award reinstatement, continuity and back wages to the workman would not be proper exercise of supervisory jurisdiction to tinker with the award. I find no manifest error committed by the labour court in declining the reference. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere in the award and for the reasons recorded above, the petition is dismissed as there is no error or fundamental flaw of law and facts in the impugned award nor is there any perversity in reasoning or misreading of the evidence.