- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The State of Rajasthan made a Scheme for supply of water in the villages known as "Jal Pradyot Yojna". The State was to contribute 50% of the total costs whereas the rest 50% was to be borne by the Gram Panchayat. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the Scheme, the Gram Panchayat of Indragarh employed several persons including Respondent No. 1 herein as a pump driver. He was initially appointed for a period of six months. The term of his appointment was extended from time to time. The total period during which Respondent No.1 remained employed was from 19.9.1996 to 7.11.1997. The Scheme was to be completed upto 7.11.1997. As the Scheme came to an end, the services of Respondent No. 1 were terminated. He filed an application for his regularization of his services as a pump driver before the Labour Welfare and Conciliation Officer, Hanumagarh. In reply to the notice issued by the said authority, the Public Health & Engineering Department of the State inter alia contended that Respondent No. 1 had never been appointed by it and in fact was appointed by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Indragarh.
(3.) An industrial dispute was raised by Respondent No. 1 herein by filing an application before the Industrial Court. By an award dated 9.5.2002, it was held that while terminating the services of Respondent No. 1 herein, the mandatory requirements of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act were not complied with and consequently an award of reinstatement with continuity of service was passed by the Labour Court. Respondent No. 1 herein, however, was declared to be entitled to only 30% of the back wages. The Labour Court while making the aforementioned award arrived at the following findings: (i) Respondent No. 1 herein had worked for a period of 13 months and 18 days and the Gram Panchayat as well as the Department made payment of his wages. (ii) He had worked for more than 240 days. As his services had been terminated by a written notice, statutory provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act had not been complied with. A writ petition filed by Appellant herein was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court opining : "It is not in dispute that the workman had worked for more than 240 days, as he had worked from 19.9.1996 to 7.11.1997. Learned counsel argued that the workman was appointed for a fixed term, and, therefore, his removal does not amount to retrenchment in view of the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, learned counsel for the Petitioner could not point out any document whereby the requirements of Section 2(oo)(bb) may be established.";