- (1.) LEAVE granted. The respondent was appointed by the appellant on contract for a period of one year as a tubewell operator/tubewell driver. On the termination of his services, he raised a dispute and the matter was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court for determination. The Labour Court by its award noted "admittedly he (the workman) did not possess the requisite qualifications for the appointment as tubewell operator/tubewell driver. It is now clear that he was appointed on contract basis." Despite this finding, however, the Labour Court was of the view that since the work was still in existence, the respondent was entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and 50% back wages.
(2.) THE writ petition of the appellant was dismissed by the High Court by holding that there was no contract between the appellant and the respondent so as to exempt the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. THE High Court granted relief to the respondent on the ground that the respondent had worked for 240 days in the 12 calendar months preceding his retrenchment and, therefore, the termination of his services was in violation of the Section 25-F of the Act. Being aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the appellant is before us. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has drawn our attention to the finding of fact by the Labour Court as also the admitted position even in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent workman before this Court. It is submitted that there'was a contract between the appellant and the respondent and no material, whatsoever has been placed to the contrary. It is, further submitted that in view of the Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provisions relating to retrenchment including Section 25-F of the Act would not apply. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent does not dispute that there was a contract of service between the appellant and the respondent. However, it is contended that the respondent was replaced by other workman similarly situated and similarly qualified like respondent. It is, therefore, submitted that the appellant had resorted to unfair labour practice and that the award of the Labour Court was correct.
(3.) SECTION 2(oo)(bb) of the Act clearly provides that the provisions relating to retrenchment did not include, inter alia, termination of services of a workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein. The High Court erred in rejecting the finding of fact by the Labour Court particularly when the award of the Labour Court had not been challenged by the respondent before it. The case was an admitted one and as has been rightly argued by the appellant, in the counter affidavit filed before this Court the respondent has proceeded on the basis that the respondent's services were terminated by non-renewal of the contract between the respondent and the appellant. The provisions of Section 25-F relied upon by the High Court only apply if there has been retrenchment of a workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service. When there is no retrenchment within the meaning of the Act, the provisions of Section 25-F will not apply. Similarly, Section 25-G contained provisions that the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed on the principle of last come first go This is also a consequence of an action of retrenchment. Neither of these provisions would help the respondent. The High Court has ignored the relevant provision of the statute. The award and the decision of the High Court are, accordingly, unsustainable in law. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the decision of the Courts below is set aside. No order as to costs.;