Mahesh Grover, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner is aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh dated 4.6.2010.
(2.) AFTER having raised a demand the reference was forwarded to the Labour Court to determine the issue which is extracted here below: Whether the services of Shri Dharminder Singh s/o Shri Lachhman Singh, Ex. Temporary Conductor No. 30, Chandigarh Transport Undertaking, Chandigarh c/o Shri R.P. Rana, House No. 2360, Sector 38 -C, Chandigarh were terminated illegally by the Director Transport, Union Territory, Chandigarh, 701, Industrial Area, Phase -I, Chandigarh, Chandigarh Transport Undertaking, Chandigarh, if so, what relief he is entitled to? The case of the Petitioner is that he was appointed as a Conductor by the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking after the names were requisitioned through the Employment Exchange and pursuant to an interview held by the Selection Committee on 11.12.1998. His appointment was for a period of 89 days on contractual basis on a consolidated salary of Rs. 2,144/ - per month. He continued to work till 13.7.1999 when he had completed 210 days. His services were terminated without any reason and despite the fact that the work was available with the Respondent No. 2 and regular posts were lying vacant. He pleaded that there has been a violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and alleged that the Respondent No. 2 had indulged in unfair labour practice. He was reinstated with effect from 16.9.1999 but was being given lesser pay. His services were then terminated on 9.10.2000 without complying with the provisions of the Act and without paying any retrenchment compensation. He further pleaded that the management had retained number of persons junior to the Petitioner in service and thus alleged that there has been violation of the provisions of Section 25 -H of the Act. In short, he pleaded that he had completed more than 210 days and was a workman within the provisions of the Act and the Respondent No. 2 terminated his services in violation of the provisions of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act.
(3.) THE Respondent No. 2 contested the case by filing written statement and raising objections therein. It was pleaded by the Respondent No. 2 that the Petitioner had been appointed purely on contractual basis on 11.12.1998 for a period of 89 days and upon completion of this period, his contract was further extended until his services were finally dispensed with on 12.7.1999. Some of the appointees similarly placed as the Petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh by filing an application before it. The Tribunal vide its order dated 2.9.1999 allowed the Petitioner, who was an applicant before it, to continue in service till the regular appointments were made by the department. A direction was issued that their services will not be replaced by any other ad hoc employees. The said application was disposed of by the Tribunal allowing the prayer partly and while doing so the Tribunal observed as follows: In view of the above agreed stand of the learned Counsel for the parties and the matter having been concluded by a decision of the High Court in the case of Rawel Singh (supra) the OA is partly allowed and the applicants are held entitled to the minimum of the pay scale plus dearness allowance admissible thereon for the period they worked with the Chandigarh Administration as Conductors...;