RAJVEER SINGH Vs. JUDGE LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the award passed by the Labour Court on March 21, 1987 by which the claim of the workman was not accepted. Hence he has approached this Court with the allegation that from August 19, 1981 to August 18, 1982 he was appointed as apprentice with the respondent and thereafter he was appointed as semi-skilled workman on the post of Welder in the regular pay scale on November 2, 1982. The petitioner met with an accident on March 5, 1983 in which his eyes were injured and he received treatment in the ESI Hospital. When he reported for duty on August 16, 1983 he was not allowed to do so and was informed that his services had already been terminated as his employment was on contractual basis and the terms of the contract had expired. According to him the termination of his services tantamounts to retrenchment. It was also alleged that the contracts were in the form of limited periods, sometimes one month and sometimes two months. As the workman has a weaker bargaining power such a contract is against public policy. The petitioner also gave the names of the persons who had been appointed after him in order to show that there was work on which the employer could have engaged him.

(2.) THE claim was contested by the management and firstly it was submitted that the workman was employed for a fixed term as the management had received an order for supplying wagons to Vietnam and for this extra work he was engaged for a short duration and the last contract was upto March 8, 1993. The extra work was over and the services of the petitioner were no longer required, The petitioner worked only for 94 days in all and could not claim the benefits of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was admitted that the petitioner was treated under the provisions of the ESI Act and this treatment continued even after the terms of the contract expired because the Act provides this facility. The contention that some other labour was engaged in his place was also denied. The learned Judge, Labour Court examined the material on record and also the affidavits which were filed by the parties and held that there was no violation of any Standing Orders and there was no unfair labour practice. Referring to the contracts on the basis of which the petitioner was employed it was held that after the expiry of contractual period the services automatically came to an end and this was not retrenchment. The employment was for a short duration in order to meet the extra work on account of the supply of wagons to Vietnam. It was further held that the period during which the petitioner remained under the treatment under the provisions of the ESI Act could not be counted as service rendered with the employer and as such the petitioner has worked only for 94 days and has not completed 240 days so as to make Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act applicable. Certain rulings were relied in arriving at this conclusion.

(3.) BOTH the parties have raised the same arguments which were raised before the Labour Court.