VIKRAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the award dated 12.09.2008 (Annexure-P-2), vide which the reference made before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Gurgaon, has been answered against the workman holding therein that the workman cannot be reinstated in service on the ground that his appointment was not in consonance with the statutory rules and was a purely adhoc contractual based appointment for a limited period. On expiry of the said period the right to remain on post comes to an end. Counsel for the petitioner to that extend is unable to convince me that the appointment was of not of such a nature as held by the Labour Court but rather concedes this.

(2.) However, he contends that in the case of similarly placed employees who were similarly appointed and their services were terminated raised a dispute and the Labour Court vide award dated 08.04.2004 in the case of Sanjay reinstated him with all consequential benefits with 50% back wages. The said award was challenged by the respondent in this High Court which was dismissed by this Court and the S.L.P. Preferred by the respondents also met the same fate. On this ground, he submits that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India have been violated as far as the claim of the petitioner qua the other similarly placed employee who were similarly terminated and reinstated and were governed by the same terms and conditions of service as in the case of the petitioner. A similar award having attained finality, the petitioner should also have been granted the same benefit as has been granted to the similarly situated employees.

(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions put forth by counsel for the petitioner. The award which was passed in the case of similarly situated employee Sanjay, has been placed on record as Annexure-P-3. It appears to be an attractive submission as put forth by counsel for the petitioner, however, the decision which has attained finality would be in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that very case and would thus be a Judgment in personum which cannot be said to be applicable for all cases which are subsequently decided by the Labour Court. The award passed by the Labour Court is based on the Judgements of this Court and Hon'ble the Supreme Court as prevalent now, which have been rightly applied to the given facts and circumstances of the present case and therefore, I do not see any reason to take a view which is not in consonance with the order passed by the Labour Court.