CHIEF SOIL CONSERVATOR FOR PUNJAB Vs. GURMAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, through the instant petition, seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the award dated September 23, 2004 (Annexure P-1) vide which respondent No. 1 has been ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and payment of 50% back wages within stipulated period of six months, failing which he would get interest @ 6% per annum.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1-workman was appointed as Bulldozer Operator with the petitioner-management on November 1, 1990. Since his appointment was on 89 days basis, the same was extended from time to time till July 5, 1996. Thereafter, his services were not extended. The workman raised an industrial dispute on the ground that his services were terminated by the management on July 15, 1996 without any notice, charge-sheet, enquiry or compensation and that the juniors to him are still in service of the management and new persons were also appointed by the/management after terminating his services. The appropriate government referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication under Section 10 (i) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, the Act) and the Labour Court on September 23, 2004 made the impugned award Annexure P1 in the manner stated above. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) The stand of the petitioner-management is that respondent No. 1 -workman was engaged as Bulldozer Operator on 89 days basis and in that stop-gap arrangement he had worked from November 1, 1990 till July 15, 1996 but intermittently. He was never employed continuously, therefore, did not work for 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months. Thus, denial of further extension of his service does not amount to retrenchment, therefore, has been wrongly awarded reinstatement with back wages. The Labour Court has not appreciated the fact that since the petitioner department is not an "Industry", the service of respondent No. 1 were not governed by the aforestated Act rather the same is governed by Punjab Civil Services Rules.