PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. DARBARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Punjab State Electricity Board (in short the Board) questions legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the respondent had rendered service in excess of 240 days in twelve calendar months preceding his retrenchment and, therefore, provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) were required to be followed. The High Court upheld the judgment of the Labour Court, Amritsar which had directed respondents reinstatement with 25% back wages from the date of demand raised by the respondent.

(2.) The factual position in a nutshell is as under: On 4-2-1988 the Board appointed respondent as Peon on daily wage basis from 8-1-1988 to 29-2-1988. It was indicated that if the work of the daily wager was not found satisfactory or if a regular employee joins, his services would be deemed to be terminated without any notice. It was also indicated therein that the daily wager was appointed against vacant post which was temporary in character. On 7-3-1988 the period indicated was extended on the same terms. There were similar extensions on 30-6-1988, 10-11-1988 and 7-4-1989. On 12-5-1989 one Surat Singh was appointed on a permanent basis. In terms of the orders of the engagement, the respondents services were dispensed with in the month of June 1989 in terms of the terms and conditions of the contractual appointment. After about 8 years on 1-4-1997 the respondent sent a demand notice questioning the order of disengagement. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court passed an award on 14-1-2003 holding that disengagement of respondent was illegal and he was entitled to reinstatement. However, taking note of the delayed demand, the wages were restricted. The writ petition filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court as noted above was dismissed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appointment was for a fixed period and, therefore, the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) were clearly applicable. It was also submitted that the abnormal delay in raising the demand making a stale claim has been lightly brushed aside by the Labour Court and the High Court.