JASBIR SINGH, J. - (1.) THE appellant is District Red Cross Society at Kurukshetra. The respondent -workman was taken in service on 1.7.2000 by the appellant -Society. He performed the duties of Additional/Assistant Secretary in the appellant -Society for a period of 89 days. Above fact is apparent from document dated 1.7.2000 (P -2). After giving break of between 2 to 4 days, his services continued to be extended till 31.10.2005. Thereafter, he was not taken back in service.
(2.) AN industrial dispute was raised by the respondent -workman. Matter was sent to the Labour Court, Ambala for adjudication. The Labour Court, on analysis of evidence, as led by the parties, formed an opinion that termination of service of the respondent -workman was not justified and was contrary to the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. It was further held that work was available and despite that services were terminated. The respondent -workman was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages. The appellant came to this Court by filing CWP No. 10920 of 2009, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by observing that plea of the appellant that termination is covered in terms of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act cannot be accepted.
(3.) THAT plea was negatived by the learned Single Judge by observing as under : - "6. The contention of the petitioner again was that the termination did not qualify for expression 'retrenchment', for a workman to complain of non -compliance of Section 25 -F. By the only fact that a workman was employed for a specified period of 89 days and where it was continued for nearly a period of 5 years, it could not assume the character of a mere contractual employment for a particular period or for a particular purpose and that when the contract was not extended, it should be taken that it was an excepted category under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Here was a specific case where the workman had complained that the management was adopting an unfair labour practice and that the nature of work was continuous in nature. In fact, it was elicited in the cross -examination of the management - witness that the work was continuously available and the periodical extensions were given with breaks in service for merely 5 years. In the cross examination, he stated that "Petitioner worked w.e.f. 1.7.2000 to 17.10.05 with breaks. The breaks were given for 2, 3, 4 days in the duties. The work was continuous but as per terms of appointment letter of the workman, he was given breaks." This evidence is sufficient to quell any doubt that the engagement was for a continuous period and it was not merely a contractual employment and when his services were terminated, it amounted to retrenchment. On an admitted premise that the workman had continuously worked for 5 years from 2000 to 2005 with barely 2, 3, 4 days of breaks with spells of 89 days at a stretch, it should only mean that the workman's termination of service qualified by the expression 'retrenchment' and the workman could not have been retrenched without complying with Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 7. Admittedly, the management was trying to take shelter by a contention that they did not retrench the workman but the termination took effect by virtue of the contractual terms. I have already rejected such a contention and the obvious fall - out is that the termination which was effected without complying with the statutory mandate was bad in law and direction for reinstatement with back wages, was perfectly justified. ;