MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, SMALKHA, THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT/SECRETARY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, PANIPAT AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 24.05.1996 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, wherein the Labour Court has answered the reference in favour of the workman and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages from the date of his termination.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the workman was appointed merely on leave arrangement basis. He continued as such and had not completed more than 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. He worked with Management from 01.06.1993 to 31.05.1994 with breaks in service. He further contends that during this period, when the workman was in appointment as Sweeper with the Municipal Committee, regular appointments of Sweepers were made through Employment Exchange and the workman also appeared in the interview but he was not found fit for being appointed as Sweeper. In these circumstances, on the appointment of the regular employees in the selection process, wherein the workman had participated, termination of service of the workman was fully justified and in accordance with law. He, on this basis, submits that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. He further submits that in any case, even if the findings, as recorded by the Labour Court, are taken to be correct, the workman would not be entitled to reinstatement in service as his appointment was not on regular basis but was merely a stop-gap arrangement without following the selection procedure nor complying with the statutory Rules governing the service. He, on this basis, submits that in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ghaziabad Development Authority and another v. Ashok Kumar and another, 2008 4 SCC 261, Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, 2008 1 SCC 575, M.P. Administration v. Tribhuwan, 2007 9 SCC 748 and State of M.P. and others v. Lalit Kumar Verma, 2007 1 SCC 575, the workman would not be entitled to reinstatement in service.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 2-workman submits that the award passed by the Labour Court is fully justified as on the basis of the muster rolls produced by the Management itself, the Labour Court has come to a conclusion that the workman had worked for 276 days from 01.06.1993 to 31.05.1994 when his services were terminated. She further submits that the services of the workman have been dispensed with for the reason that the workman had complained against the Management that the selection process for the post was not fair and proper. She, therefore, contends that the termination of the services of the workman was not bona-fide and has been resorted to with an intention to punish the workman. She further submits that persons junior to the workman have been selected and appointed on regular basis. She submits that this position with regard to the selection of the juniors and giving them appointment has not been disputed by the Management and even the Management witness, who has appeared before the Labour Court, has admitted that not only juniors have been retained in service but a number of new workers were appointed by the department on regular basis. She further submits that the witness, who had appeared on behalf of the Management, has submitted that he was not aware of the qualifications for appointment nor was he able to give reasons for non-selection of the workman on regular basis. She, on this basis, contends that the non-selection of the workman without assigning any reason is not justified. She, on the basis of the above submissions, contends that the impugned award deserves to be sustained and no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Labour Court while passing the impugned award.