RAJESH SHARMA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (for short "the PGI"), appointed the petitioner as telephone operator on daily wages for 89 days with effect from December 1, 1988. On the expiry of this period his services came to an end, as he was not given any extension. However, on an application filed by him he was appointed as a clerk on daily wages in the Committee Branch against a short-term vacancy for a period of 89 days from March 16, 1989, to June 13, 1989. It was made clear in the letter of appointment that he was not being appointed in accordance with the rules and that the recruitment against a regular post made only by a selection committee of the institute, as per recruitment rules, from amongst the persons sponsored by the employment exchange, as and when vacancies are notified. On the expiry of 89 days, his appointment was extended for another period of 89 days from June 15, 1989, to September 11, 1989, and on the expiry of this period his service automatically came to an end. This termination gave rise to an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh. The workman contended before the Labour Court that he had completed 240 days of service with the PGI, and, since the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short "the Act") had not been complied with, the termination was wrongful and that he was entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and other attendant benefits. The reference was contested by the PGI and it was pleaded that the workman was appointed for a specific period against specific jobs and that his services automatically came to an end on the expiry of the period, for which he was appointed, and, therefore, such termination did not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of the Act. It was further pleaded that it was not necessary for the PGI to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

(2.) ON an assessment of the evidence led by the parties, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the workman could not claim benefit of his earlier appointment, as telephone operator, and that while working as a clerk he had not completed 240 days of service. It was further found that it was not necessary for the PGI to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F or Section 25-G of the Act. The termination was upheld and the reference decided in favour of the management and against the workman. It is against this award mat the present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) WE have heard counsel for the parties and it is their common case that the petitioner was given a short-term appointment, both as a telephone operator and also as a clerk on daily wages, and that he was not appointed in accordance with the rules governing such recruitment. In terms of the recruitment rules, the post has to be filled up by a selection committee after getting the names sponsored from the employment exchange, which was admittedly not done. Since a short-term vacancy had arisen the petitioner was employed on daily wages to fill that vacancy. His services came to an end on the expiry of the period for which he was appointed. Since the petitioner was not appointed in accordance with the rules but was engaged on the basis of need of work, his disengagement from service cannot be construed as retrenchment under the Act. Support in mis regard can be had from the observations of the Apex Court in Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi v. State of Bihar AIR 1997 SC 3657 : 1997 (4) SCC 391 : 1998-II-LLJ 15. It must, therefore, be held that it was not necessary for the PGI to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act and that the services of the petitioner were terminated in accordance with law which did not amount to retrenchment.