- (1.) This petition filed by the Director, Primary Education, Haryana, assails the award of the Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh, dated 18.12.2002, by which the claim of the respondent-workman for reinstatement in service, was allowed along with continuity of such service. 50% back-wages were also awarded, from the date of issuance of the demand notice.
(2.) The facts of the case, as given in the petition, are that the respondent-workman, Suresh Kumar, was appointed as an Electrician for a period of 89 days on 03.01.1997 and was to be paid wages as prescribed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh, from time to time. The appointment letter (Annexure P-1 with the petition) shows the appointment to be contractual, with the respondents' services liable to be terminated at any time without notice. The appointment letter is reproduced below:- "Office of the Director of Primary Education Haryana, Chandigarh. Order No.21/6/94 Admn CT Dated, Chd., the 03.01.1997 Sh. Suresh Kumar son of Shri Nand Lal, H.No.2830, Sector- 15, Panchkula is hereby appointed as Electrician on contract basis for the period of 89 days w.e.f. 03.01.1997. He will be paid wages as prescribed by Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh from time to time. His services are liable to be terminated at any time without any notice. The charge is debitable to the Head "2202-General Education- 01-Elementary Education-Direction and Administration (N.P). sd/- D.S. Sahrawat Administrative Officer, O/O Director Primary Education, Haryana, Chandigarh. Endst. No.Even Dated, Chandigarh, the 3.1.1997 A copy is forwarded to the following for information and necessary action:- 1. Sh. Suresh Kumar s/o Shri Nand Lal, H.No.2830 Sector-15, Panchkula. 2. Care Taker. sd/- Superintendent, Admn. Pry. For Director Primary Education, Haryana, Chandigarh."
(3.) As per the petition, the appointment on contract basis was renewed from time to time, each time for 89 days, with notional breaks in between, till his services were finally terminated in May/June 1998. Though the respondent-workmans' claim was that he continued working till 12.06.1998, after which he was refused work without assigning any reason, however, the stand of the petitioner department, before the Labour Court and in the present petition, was that he worked up till 31.05.1998. However, in reply to the Review Application filed by the respondent-workman (details given hereinafter), it was admitted that his services were terminated on 12.06.1998.;