- (1.) The Management challenges the order directing reinstatement and back wages to workman, who claimed that he had been illegally terminated from service. The complaint was with reference to an engagement that came through an order issued on 25.06.1984 allowing for the petitioner's appointment as a Temporary WRA (Maintenance) on a consolidated salary of Rs 15/- per day in terms of the settlement dated 10.03.1983. Before the Labour Court, it was contended by the Management that the petitioner's termination from service was not retrenchment in the eye of law but an automatic termination on the terms of appointment providing for a tenure upto a particular date, namely, till 21.08.1984. The non-engagement from 21.08.1984 did not amount, therefore, to retrenchment.
(2.) The Labour Court observed that it was an admitted case that the petitioner had been engaged on and of 1979 and he held that even if it was for a particular tenure, so long as the termination of service was not by way of punishment then, such termination could be actionable for a person, who complained that juniors had been re-employed and on the period of engagement coming to an end, the Management did not even maintain a register of employees in the order of their seniority to consider them for reengagement as and when there was an occasion for re-employment.
(3.) I am of the view that the Labour Court was in error on a fundamental issue that every termination of service that was not in the manner of punishment after inquiry is actionable. Section 2(oo) definition of 'retrenchment' contains an important exception inserted through an amendment made by the Act 49 of 1984 w.e.f. 18.08.1984. Section 2(oo) reads as follows: "2(oo) 'retrenchment' means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include - (a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or (b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or [(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or] (c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health;]" This amendment was actually to conform to the existing state of law, which was applied in several Courts and since there was not a uniform understanding of this provision, the statutory amendment was brought. In this case, the appointment is upto a period of 21.08.1984 and by that time, in any event, the amendment had been brought introducing Section 2(bb) to Section 2(oo). There could be instances where the employer would deliberately provide for limited periods of engagement with artificial breaks to prevent continuity of service. There was not even such a plea that the engagement for a short period was a device to prevent the employee from obtaining continuity of service. The statement of claim filed before the Court will show that the petitioner was complaining of unlawful termination of service without notice on 22.08.1984. If it is translated in legal parlance, it would mean that the workman was complaining of an illegal termination without notice as contemplated under Section 25F, insofar as there was a prayer for reinstatement and re-employment. Section 25F only. Section 25F benefit is possible only to persons, who had completed 240 days of continuous service as defined under Section 25B of the ID Act. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman is prepared to state that there was no such attempt to prove continuous service of 240 days. ;