M.L.Bhat - (1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved against the award of Labour Court dated 19-10-83 and consequential order passed in pursuance of the said award, and has challenged the same In this writ petition. His services are said to have been terminated on 16-7-82. He raised a labour dispute which was rejected by the Labour Court.
(2.) THE petitioner's case is that he was appointed as Pump Attendant in the Water Works Department on 1-4-81 and he worked on the said post opto 30-6-81 on the pay scale approved by the Government This appointment was ad hoc which was extended for a further period of six mouths by an order dated 17-6-81 which was communicated to the petitioner on 30-6-81. THE services of the petitioner were further extended for three months. THEn the petitioner, thereafter received a letter dated 16-7-82 to the effect that his services were terminated. On this letter the petitioner raised a labour dispute. A reference was made to the Labour Court by the appropriate Government. THE reference which was to be decided by the Labour Court was in respect of the termination order of the petitioner. THE labour Court issued the award and held the petitioner's termination from service justified. The petitioner's case is that he has worked as Pump Attendant in the Water Works Department Nagar Palika, Falehpur Sikri continuously with effect from 4-4-81 to 16-7-82 i e. for 469 days immediately preceding Ms termination of services. The services of the petitioner, therefore, could not be terminated in violation of the mandatory provisions of law. He was entitled to get retrenchment compensation and also one month's pay in lieu of one month notice which was required to be served upon him by the employer. The labour Court has rejected the petitioner's claim on the ground that he was an ad hoc employee, therefore, his services is against the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. the Labour Court's finding to the effect that the petitioner being temporary employee appointed for a temporary period in also assailed as being bad in law. On the aforesaid set of facts, the petitioner seeks a further direction that the respondents be directed to treat him in service and pay him all dues. Counter affidavit has been filed by the other side The. only defence put forth by the respondents to resist the claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner was an ad hoc employee whose employment was for a fixed period and there was no necessity to retain] the petitioner and he ceased to be an employee w.e.f. 15-7-82 when the date of last extension of the ad hoc employment expired. Therefore, he is not entitled to any protection of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act.
(3.) IN his rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioner has reiterated ail that what is stated in the writ petition and he has submitted that the provisions of INdustrial Disputes Act protect his rights and he cannot be thrown out without following the mandatory provisions of the INdustrial Disputes Act. Learned counsel for the parties were heard and the material placed on the record critically examined. The following facts are established- (1) That the petitioner was appointed originally as Pump Attendant on 1-4-81 on ad hoc basis. (2) That the petitioner's ad hoc appointment was extended from time to time and he worked as Pump Attendant from 1-4-81 to 15-7-82. In this manner he has worked for 469 days continuously within one year preceding the order of termination of his services. (3) His services have been terminated without following the mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act,;