SIMLA DEVI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition to quash the award dated 22. 5. 1997 passed by the Labour Court, Bathinda in reference No. 119 of 1994.

(2.) THE facts necessary for deciding this petition are that the petitioner was employed as a Class-IV employee under the respondent No. 3 w. e. f. 8. 9. 1992. She raised an industrial dispute challenging the termination of her services w. e. f. 19. 8. 1993 on the ground of violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') and unfair labour practice as well as the violation of the principles of natural justice. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 contested her claim by stating that the petitioner was engaged as a part-time employee and her service stood terminated on completion of the period of employment. They also contended that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable to her case. By its award dated 17. 1. 1996, the labour Court held that the provisions of the Act are not attracted because the Hospitals and dispensaries do not come within the ambit of industry as defined Under Section 2 (j ). It also held that the termination of the service of the workmen is covered by Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act. That award was set aside by the High Court in C. W. P. No. 4201 of 1996. Vide its order dated 28. 8. 1996, the High Court reversed the finding of the Labour Court that a part-time employee does not fall within the definition of 'workman'. At the same time it remanded the case to the labour Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. By the impugned award the labour Court has again refused to give relief to the petitioner by holding that the termination of her service is covered by the provisions of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act.

(3.) ON the issue is applicability of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act in the case of a part time workman, the judgment of the Division Bench in C. W. P. No. 4201 of 1996, Simla Devi v. Presiding Officer, (supra) is binding on the parties. As such the plea set up by the respondents that the provisions of the Act are not applicable/are not attracted in the case of the petitioner deserves to be rejected. Moreover, we find that this plea of the respondents is wholly untenable because in the written statement filed before the Labour Court, the respondents had unequivocally averred that the petitioner was engaged on monthly salary. For the first three months she was paid Rs. 476a per month. For the remaining period she was paid @ Rs,502.00 per month. On the issue of total period of service, we find that the petitioner had in fact worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months preceding the date of termination of her services. The plea of the respondents that she had worked for a specified period and her services stood automatically terminated cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the respondents did not produce any evidence to show that the petitioner had been engaged for doing a specified job and her services came to an end on the completion of that job. Rather we find substance in the petitioner's contention that the respondents had deliberately given break in her services with a view to avoid compliance of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Law in this respect must be treated to have been conclusively laid down in favour of the petitioner in The Karnal Central Co-operative Societies Bank Limited v. State of Haryana, 1995 (1) R. S. J. 817; The Haryana State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited v. State of Haryana, 1995 (4) R. S. J. 369; C. W. P. No. 11881 of 1994, Bhikhu Ram v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak and Anr. , decided on 28. 11. 1994. In the fast mentioned case the Court examined the ambit and scope of Section 2 (oo) along with its various clauses including Clause (bb) and Section 25-F of the Act and after making reference to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Hariprasad Shivshankar Shukla v. A. D. Divakar, A. I. R. 1957 S. C. 121; Anakapalla Co-operative Agricultural and Industrial Society Ltd, v. Workmen, 1963 Supp. (1) S. C. R. 730; Workmen of Subrong Tea Estate v. The Outgoing Management of Subong Tea Estate and Anr. , 1964 (5) S. C. R. 602; Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Shambhu Nath Mukharjee and Ors. , 1978 (1) S. C. R. 591; State Bank of India v. Shri N. Sundra Dey,10 A. I. R. 1976 S. C. 1111; Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, 1977 (1) S. C. R. 586; Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala, A. I. R. 1980 S. C. 1219; Mohan Lal v. Management of Bharat Electronics Ltd. , A. I. R. 1981 S. C. 1253; Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, A. I. R. 1981 S. C. 422; L. Robert D'souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and Anr. , A. I. R. 1982 S. C. 854; Management of Kamataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore v. M. Boraiah, 1984 (1) S. C. C. 244; Gammon India Ltd. v. Niranjan Dass, 1984 (1) S. C. C. 509; Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. , Chandigarh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and Ors. , JT. 1990 (2) S. C. 489 and Sections 2 (ra), 25-T, 25-U as well as Fifth Schedule (Part-I), the court held as under: