- (1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 22.07.2013 (Annexure P12), whereby the plea of the petitioner-workman for reinstatement was rejected by the Labour Court, Patiala by holding that the workman had been appointed for a contractual period and therefore, it was not a case of retrenchment.
(2.) A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that the case of the workman, in his claim statement, is that he was appointed as temporary Clerk for a period of 6 months, as per the order of the Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Ghanaur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala on 14.06.2001. He worked till 13.12.2001 and extension was allowed upto 14.06.2002 and his work and conduct remained satisfactory. However, he was not allowed to join duty on 31.12.2001 though he continued to go to the office till 28.02.2003. No show cause notice was issued and no compensation was paid and that fresh appointments were made and juniors were retained. Accordingly, it was alleged that there was violation of Sections 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act').
(3.) The defence of the respondents was that the engagement was fortuitous and contingent for a period of 6 months as regular employees were not readily available and an advertisement for making regular appointments had already been issued and the last date of receipt of applications was 25.06.2001. The post of Clerk was provided under the Punjab Panchayat Samities & Zila Parishad (First Amendment) Rules, 2000 and it was a direct recruitment post and therefore, the engagement was not in accordance with the statutory rules and it was only a back-door entry and the application of the workman for appointment was not in response to any advertisement or through Employment Exchange. The reference was highly belated and that the facts had been twisted. His services had come to an end on 31.12.2001, on joining of the regular employee, in pursuance of the advertisement and he had not completed 240 days of service and in view of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act and he was not entitled for any benefit. The same was controverted by filing detailed replication.;