BRIJ BHUSHAN Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that arises for decision in this petition is whether the petitioner whose appointment has been held illegal by this Court is entitled to be reinstated in service on the ground of non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short the Act of 1947 ).

(2.) THE facts necessary for deciding the above mentioned question need be noticed in the first instance. The petitioner was initially appointed as Helper in the service of Haryana Roadways at Panipat on contract basis from 18. 1. 1995 to 31. 1. 1995. The term of his appointment was extended from time to time subject to the condition that his services are liable to be terminated at any time without prior notice or assigning any reason. The last extension given to the term or his appointment ended on 29. 2. 1996. This happened during the pendency of Civil Writ Petition No. 14743 of 1995 filed by Ved Parkash in which the petitioner was a party respondent. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute challenging the non-extension of his service on the ground of violation of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H. In the statement of claim filed by him before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, the petitioner pleaded for quashing of termination of his service on the ground that one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation had not been given to him at the time of termination of his service. He also averred that junior persons have been retained in service and as such the employer is guilty of violating of rule of last come first go. Section 25-H was invoked by him by stating that fresh candidates have been appointed without giving him the offer of re-employment. The respondent No. 2 justified the non-extension of the term of his appointment by relying on the orders passed by the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 4521 of 1994. Kulbhushan v. State of Haryana and Ors. , and Civil Writ Petition No. 14743 of 1995. Ved Parkash v. State of Haryana and Ors. ,.

(3.) MRS . Abha Rathore questioned the correctness of the award and argued that the provisions of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 (for short the Act of 1959') are not attracted in a case like the present one and even if the initial appointment of the petitioner is held to be illegal, the employer cannot justify the termination of his service without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F. She referred to the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act of 1947, the respondent No. 1 could not have declined relief of reinstatement to the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the Industrial Tribunal cannot go into the legality of the appointment of the workman for refusing the relief of reinstatement with back wages.