MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA Vs. H R T C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed against the award dated 31 -12-2003 passed by the presiding Judge. HP. Labour Court, Shimla in reference No. 227 of 2003.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the appropriate Government had made a reference to the HP Labour Court. Shimla to the effect that whether the retrenchment of the petitioner is effected without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In sequel to the reference, the petitioner had filed the statement of claim before the Labour Court and the respondent-corporation had also filed reply to the statement of claim. First appointment letter issued in favour of the petitioner was dated 25-1-2000 whereby he was engaged for a period of 89 days @ Rs. 2000 per month vide Annexure P-1. The petitioner was again re-engaged as Part Time Worker (Peon) for a period 89 days with effect from 22-4-2000 vide office order dated 22-4-2000 (Annexure p-2 ). The General Manager (Administration) of the respondent-corporation has issued letter dated 1-8-2000 whereby the necessary sanction of the competent authority for re-engagement of the petitioner as well as one Sh. Mehar Singh, Chowkidar as Part time Class IV for a period of one year was conveyed. Thus, the total period was for 18 months with effect from 21st January, 2000 onwards. The petitioner was retrenched in the month of december, 2001. and according to him, the provisions of section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were not complied with. The case set out by the respondent-corporation before the Labour Court was that the engagement of the petitioner was contractual and thus section 25 (F) could not be invoked by the petitioner. The learned Labour Court has held that the appointment of the petitioner was for a specific period and thus he could not claim the protection of section 25f of the Act and the reference accordingly was replied in negative.

(3.) MR. B. N. Misra, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has strenuously submitted that the petitioner had completed 240 days preceding 12 calendar months at the time of his retrenchment and was entitled to the protection of section 25f of the Act. Mr. Misra has also drawn the attention of this Court to one communication dated 29-3-2001 circulated by the Managing Director of the Corporation to all the Divisional Managers of the Corporation, specifically directing them that the services of the workman were to be dispensed with forthwith as no longer required if the workman was going to complete 240 days during the current sanction/extended period. This was issued under the head "89 days" According to Mr. B. N. Misra the iasuance of this communication dated 27th March, 2001 (Annexure P-7) amounts to unfair labour practice.