S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the workman challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 2.2.1998 (copy annexure P/4) vide which it was held that he was not entitled to any relief. The petitioner was appointed on 17.11.1989 as a Fitter Helper. However, on 22.10.1990, his services were terminated without any retrenchment compensation or notice and, therefore, he raised a demand which was referred to the Labour Court.
(2.) WE have heard learned counsellor the parties. The Labour Court has held that the petitioner has not completed 240 days of service in a calender year and that his appointment was for a fixed period and was not extended further and that provision of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") will be applicable. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the deposition of MW1 Harmeet Singh Bal who was Superintendent of respondent No. 1. He has stated that the workmen were appointed in November, 1989 and, thereafter, they were again employed upto October, 1990. Annexure P/2 is the certificate from the Chief Engineer. It has been mentioned therein that the petitioner is working in the Mill as Fitter Helper with effect from 17.11.1989 to -date i.e. 27.9.1990. Annexure P/3 is a certificate signed by Managing Director in which the working days have been mentioned. Moreover, respondent No. 1 has taken up a stand in the written statement that the services of the petitioner were not terminated but came to an end by efflux of time. Ex.M 1 is the appointment letter on which the date mentioned is 20.11.1989. It appears to be in a cyclostyled form. The appointment is mentioned to be of Six months. At the same time, it is mentioned in clause 4 of the appointment order that performance will be examined in six months and if his work is found satisfactory, then his case will be considered for regularisation of service. It is clear that even after the period of six months, the petitioner had continued working. He has as per the statement of MW1 himself, worked upto 22.10.1990, that means beyond the period of the appointment letter. The certificates produced by the petitioner are challenged. However, respondent No. 1 has not shown that during the period from the date of the appointment till the date he worked as mentioned by MW1, the petitioner has not completed 240 days of service. Moreover, according to the cross -examination of MW1 read with the appointment letter Ex.M1, the petitioner had worked from November, 1989 upto October, 1990 and his services were terminated on 22.10.1990. In this position, both because the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days and because even after the expiry of the service period of six months, the petitioner was allowed to continue, the petitioner's appointment cannot be said to be for a particular period. Therefore, we do not agree with the Labour Court which upheld termination.
(3.) AS a result, this writ petition is allowed. The award of the Labour Court upholding the termination of the services of the petitioner is set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service with back wages from the date of demand notice.;