NAR SINGH Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Nar Singh has filed the present civil writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned award dated 1.8.1990 passed by the Labour Court, respondent No.l (Annexure P.2) and the impugned action of the Haryana Warehousing Corporation, respondent No.2 terminating the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 24.10.1988 and the petitioner has further prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus that respondent No.2 be directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with full back wages and consequential benefits. The case set up by the petitioner was that he was appointed as Chowkidar by respondent No.2 at Sirsa for the first time on 1.5.1986 and finally his services were terminated on 24.10.1986 and during the above period he worked at different places such as Sirsa, Bhana, Lakhanmajra, Rohtak and Meham in the capacity of Chowkidar. The petitioner has also given the break of his service period in para No.2 of the writ petition as follows:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_127_LAWS(P&H)11_1996(1).html</FRM> Total period of service rendered in a period of 2 Y M D years 5 months and 24 days (from 1.5.86 to 24.10.1988) 2 4 3

(2.) The petitioner alleges that he had worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year under the employment and control of the employer at his different place of postings. His services were illegally terminated on 24.10.1988 by the Management without complying to the provisions of Sec. 25-F of the Disputes Act. He raised an industrial issue which was referred to the Labour by the State of Haryana under Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act and Labour Court passed the award Annexure P.2 dated 1.8.1990 and illegally held the services of the petitioner were not terminated in view of the provisions of section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that rather the case of the petitioner i covered by the proviso of BB of Sec. 2(oo) of the said Act. The award of the Labour Court has been challenged by the petitioner as illegal,arbitrary and again the principles of natural justice as the Labour Court failed to take into consideration that the services of the petitioner were terminated which amounts to an act retrenchment within the meaning of Sec. 2(oo) and that the Labour Court also failed to observe that the termination was without payment of retrenchment compensation; hence the impugned order dated 24.10.1988 terminating the services of the petitioner was required to be set aside.

(3.) Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondent No.2 which filed written statement and denied all the allegations. It has been averred in the written statement that the petitioner was appointed as a Godown Attendant-cum-Watchman on daily wages for a period of 12 weeks vide order dated 24.6.1986 and was posted at Sirsa. Subsequently, he was given fresh appointments at different places for different period on purely temporary/adhoc basis. According to respondent No.2, the services of the petitioner were not terminated. In fact, he was given fresh appointment for different periods at different places and used to be relieved after the expiry of period of his appointment. The term of his last appointment expired on 24.10.1988 and he was relieved on the expiry of his term and no fresh appointment was given after that. It was admitted by respondent No.2 that the petitioner raised an industrial issue and the matter was referred to the Labour Court which passed the award dated 1.8.1990. According to this respondent, the award is perfectly valid as the case of the petitioner falls within the meaning of Sec. 2(oo)(BB) of the Industrial Disputes Act.