MEDICAL OFFICER INCHARGE Vs. SUKHWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the award dated 8-8-2005 passed by respondent No. 2, ordering re-instatement of respondent No. 1 with continuity of service, without back wages. Few facts necessary for disposal of present writ petition are as under-Respondent No. 1 was inducted into services by the petitioners as Class-IV employee on 89 days wage basis vide letter dated 30-7-1997. He worked from 4-8-1997 to 1-11-1997. Thereafter, as many as 14 extensions were given to him w. e. f, 5-11-1997 to 10-5-2001. After that his services were not extended which gave rise to an industrial dispute. The v. orkman laid challenge to the action of the department before the Labour court on the ground of non-compliance of provisions of sections 25f, 25g and 25h of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act), besides allegations of unfair labour practice on the part of the B management was also alleged. His claim, was resisted by the petitioner-department. Their stand was that the services of workman were terminated in view of the decision of this court rendered in C. W. P. Nos. 11096 and 11105 of 2001 titled as Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab, and mandeep Singh v. State of Punjab, respectively and also in the light of the instructions dated 12-8-1996 of the Personnel Department.

(2.) THE Labour Court vide the impugned award disposed of the reference in the manner indicated above.

(3.) FEELING dissatisfied with the same, instant writ petition has been preferred by the department questioning the impugned award on the ground that the appointment of workman was made specifically for a period of 89 days on all the occasions. It automatically comes to an end with afflux of time. Moreover, the appointment of workman was made de hors to the rules. No proper procedure was followed while appointing the workman, as such, he is not entitled to reinstatement. Moreover, the services of the workman were terminated in the light of the instructions dated 12-8-1996 of the Personnel Department as well as the decisions rendered by this court in C. W. P. Nos. 11096 and 11105 of 2001, referred to above.