- (1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the Award dated 27.08.2009 (Annexure P-1) whereby, the Labour Court, Ambala has declined the relief of reinstatement holding that the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis for a fixed term of 89 days and at the end of the contract, the services of the petitioner would come to an end with the efflux of time and, therefore, it would not amount to retrenchment. The Labour Court, thus, brought the case within the ambit of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act').
(2.) A perusal of the Award would go on to show that it was the claim of the workman that he had worked as workman/Beldar from 01.08.2000. Thereafter, he was appointed on contract basis @ Rs. 2,250/- per month for a period of 89 days vide order dated 31.01.2001 and worked continuously upto March, 2004 and thus, completed 240 days in one calendar year. His termination was in violation of the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Act and the work was still continuing and also unfair labour practice was adopted. No notice or salary in lieu of any retrenchment compensation had been given to him and juniors had been retained. His writ petition filed in this Court had been dismissed as withdrawn with permission to avail the remedy under the Act.
(3.) The plea taken by the respondent-university was that the petitioner was employed on contract basis at a fixed salary on specific terms and conditions and after the completion of his work, he automatically stood relieved as per Clause 5 of the offer of engagement. Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act was sought to be applied. The Labour Court firstly held that the solitary oral bald statement by the petitioner that he worked for 240 days was not worthy of any credence in the absence of any supportive evidence and held that the management has placed on record the documents in the shape of Exs. M-1 to M-20 and once the appointments were without any written test or interview and since it was a case of public employment, the relief could not be granted to him. The termination did not amount to retrenchment and it was in view of the terms and conditions of the appointment. Accordingly, the relief was denied by also holding that 240 days did not stand proved.;