HRTC Vs. PRESIDING JUDGE, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge herein is to the award Annexure P -4 made by the learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court -cum -Industrial Tribunal, Shimla, on 30.12.2011, in Reference No. 12 of 2010, whereby respondent No. 2 -workman has been ordered to be reinstated with seniority and continuity, with effect from the date of his termination. The facts, as disclosed from the record, in a nutshell are that the petitioner was initially engaged as a helper/tyreman in the petitioner Corporation on 4.9.1997, on monthly remuneration of Rs. 1500/ - . He was asked to execute an agreement in the month of November, 1997, qua his engagement only for 89 days. He continued discharging his duties till 17.4.2001, when his services were terminated orally. Against such action on the part of the petitioner -Corporation, the respondent -workman had approached the erstwhile H. P. State Administrative Tribunal, by way of filing OA No. 1637/2001, which, however, was ordered to be returned, for being presented before the competent forum, vide order dated 5th April, 2002.

(2.) CONSEQUENTLY , the respondent -workman raised dispute under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, which was rejected by the Labour Commissioner on 30th December, 2002. Thereafter Civil Writ Petition No. 951/2003 came to be filed before this Court, which was also dismissed, with the observation that from the petition and the documents annexed thereto, the respondent -workman was not able to successfully demonstrate that he had completed 240 days preceding 12 months of his disengagement. On coming into being the Right to Information Act, 2005, the respondent -workman moved an application thereunder to the Public Information Officer - cum -Divisional Manager HRTC, Shimla, with a request to supply him the detail of all the working days and the payment of wages during his engagement with the petitioner -Corporation from September, 1997 to April, 2001, which was made available to him, vide letter dated 11.6.2009, Annexure P -1 (Colly). After obtaining such information, he served the petitioner -Corporation with a fresh demand notice on the basis whereof the Labour -Commissioner made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court.

(3.) THE legality and validity of the impugned order has been assailed on the grounds, inter alia, that the respondent -workman never completed 240 days in a calendar year while in service with the petitioner -Corporation and as such the finding to the contrary returned by the Tribunal below are not only illegal, but also against the facts of the case. While making reference to the dismissal of earlier Writ Petition bearing No. 951 of 2003 by this Court vide judgment dated 3.12.2003, it has been contended that the Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court below has illegally brushed aside the findings recorded by this Court in the said judgment. According to the petitioner -Corporation, since the engagement of the respondent -workman was purely contractual one, therefore, his disengagement on the expiry of the contract period cannot be said to be within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act. The impugned award allegedly being illegal, non -speaking and contrary to the facts has thus been sought to be quashed and set aside.