- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard Sri Siddharth Counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. K. Mukherjee and standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as labourer on 25. 6. 1982 in the respondent M/s Jeep Industrial Ltd. Allahabad. The petitioner workman claimed that his services had wrongly been terminated vide order dated 21. 10. 1997 w. e. f. 23. 10. 1997. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute. On conciliation proceedings having failed, the matter regarding validity and justification of termination of the workman was referred to Industrial Tribunal (I), U. P. at Allahabad, where it was registered as adjudication case No. 24 of 1999. The order of reference is as under: "kya sewayojakon dwara apne sambandhit shramik Sri Shahjade, putra Sri Abdul Khalik ki sewain dinank 23. 10. 97 se samapt kiya Jana uchit tatha/ athwa vaidhanik hai? Yadi nahi, to sambandhit shramik kya hitlabh/anutosh (relief) pane ka adhikari hai, evam anya kis vivran sahit?" On receipt of summons, the workman filed his statement of demand inter alia that though he was a daily-wager, he was performing permanent nature of work and as such was a permanent workman; that he was engaged from time to time for fixed periods which came to an end after the period for which job had been provided came to an end. It was also claimed that artificial breaks of two to four days was given in between each fresh appointments which amounted to unfair labour practice and this device was resorted by the employer to deny the benefits of permanency in employment to the workman concerned. It was also alleged that while illegally terminating the services, the employer retained juniors to him in service and as the workman had worked for more than 240 days in each of the years, his termination from service without holding any enquiry was wrong ful and for all the aforesaid reasons as well as being against the provisions of law. The workman sought relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and other benefits of a permanent workman.
(3.) IN their rejoinder affidavit, the employers case the labour Court was that the petitioner workman was only a temporary employee, he was engaged from time to time on need basis and he has never worked corftinuously in the establishment for more than 240 days in any of the year of his engagement. It was denied by the respondents employers that any junior to the workman concerned had been retained in service and that the workman was paid all his dues and amount in lieu of notice according to the provisions as contained in the certified standing order of the Company; that they have not indulged in any unfair labour practice or have given any artificial break in the service of the workman as alleged by him. It was also denied by the employer that the petitioner was neither a permanent workman nor was working against any permanent post; that his nature of work was also not permanent. Their case was that the termination of service of the workman contract after expiry of the limited term of engagement on account of non-renewal of contract does not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Central) as amended by Act No. 46 of 1982 w. e. f. 31. 8. 1984.;