KANWAR PAL Vs. PRESIDENT, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner is that his services were terminated by the Management. He raised an industrial dispute on the ground that provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act) were not complied with. The Labour Court rejected his claim on the ground that he had not completed 240 days' of service.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he served from 20.5.1996 to 23.4.1997 as a Tubewell Helper with the Municipal Corporation as a daily wager.

(3.) Admittedly, the petitioner was not given any regular appointment by following the procedure. Since employment in question being public employment is governed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, termination of service was not liable to be interfered with and reinstatement could not be granted. Even applicability of Section 25-F of the Act in a situation where contract of service is terminable is doubtful, in view of exception (bb) to Section 2(oo) of the Act. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. V/s. Neeraj Awasthi and others, 2006 1 SCC 667, Municipal Corporation, Samrala V/s. Raj Kumar, 2006 3 SCC 81, Reserve Bank of India V/s. Gopi Nath Sharma, 2006 6 SCC 221, Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and others V/s. State of Bihar and others, 1997 4 SCC 391, State of M.P. and others V/s. Lalit Kumar Verma, 2007 1 SCC 575, State of M.P. and others V/s. Yogesh Chandra Dubey and others, 2006 8 SCC 67, M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. and another V/s. S.C. Pandey, 2006 2 SCC 716and M.P. Housing Board and another V/s. Manoj Shrivastava, 2006 2 SCC 702.