VINOD KUMAR BANSAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed to quash the award of the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Hissar dated 5.11.1993 vide Annexure P-1.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk by the 2nd respondent namely Registrar, Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar in October, 1983 and he joined service on 18.11.1983. The services of the petitioners were terminated on 1-4-1985 without serving any notice and without the payment of retrenchment compensation which is in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hissar. By the impugned award, the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court held that the termination of services of the petitioner was justified and legal and therefore, the workman namely the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and accordingly answered the reference in the negative. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

(3.) The evidence on record shows that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on purely ad hoc basis initially for a period of six months or till regular incumbent joins whichever is earlier and he was appointed against a reserved post. The services of the petitioner were dispensed with in pursuance of the letter dated 16.5.1984. Thereafter, on an application submitted by the application, he was again appointed as a Clerk on ad hoc basis on his furnishing any undertaking that he will not have any claim on the post, by the 2nd, respondent for a period of six months. As per the condition in the appointment letter, his services could be terminated at any time without notice. After the expiry of period of six months, he was given extensions of one month each. Since regular appointment was made, the services of the petitioner (workmen) were terminated in terms of his appointment letter. Therefore, according to the management, the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) will apply and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as the termination of service of the employee does not amount to retrenchment. This contention of the management found favour with the, Labour Court.