MEENA RAWAT Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-workman has, through this writ petition, challenged the award dated 08.02.1996 passed by the Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh (Annexure P-15), vide which the reference has been answered against the workman holding therein that the termination of the services of the workman on account of expiry of contract of services and non-renewal of the contract did not amount to retrenchment and she was, therefore, not entitled to any notice pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk-cum-Typist on daily wage basis w.e.f. 21.08.1987 by respondent No. 2 for a period of one month i.e. up to 20.09.1987 on purely daily wages, which was fixed @ Rs. 26/- as per the rate fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala. The said amount was to be paid out of contingency for the actual working days subject to a maximum of Rs. 646/- in a month, whichever is less. She continuously worked with the Management on 30 days basis on the same terms and conditions with some intermittent breaks. On expiry of each term a fresh appointment was given and she continued as such till 26.03.1989. The petitioner filed CWP No. 3145 of 1989 in this High Court praying therein for regularization of services and also prayed stay of her termination. This Court was pleased to grant stay in favour of the workman during the pendency of the writ petition. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22.10.1992. Due to further non-renewal of the contract of services of the workman, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondent-Management. As per the contention of the workman, her service was verbally terminated on 13.01.1993.

(3.) She preferred CWP No. 1483 of 1993 in this High Court challenging her termination and also claiming regularization of her services as she had put in more than five years of service with the Management. The said writ petition, however, came to be disposed of by this Court observing that the workman may avail her remedy before the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act. Demand notice dated 13.02.1993 was served on the Management by the petitioner. Accordingly, the conciliation proceedings having been failed, the matter was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court vide notification dated 12.08.1993. On the basis of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the services of the workman were terminated on account of expiry of contract of services and non-renewal of the contract did not amount to retrenchment, thus rejecting the claim of the workman that her services have been terminated illegally by the Management. It is this award passed by the Labour Court, Chandigarh dated 08.02.1996 (Annexure P-15), which is under challenge in the present writ petition by the workman.