- (1.) This order shall dispose of 8 writ petitions, bearing CWP Nos.22369 of 2011, 13307, 13346, 13373, 16595, 16677, 16756 & 16788 of 2012, involving common questions of law and facts and the award dated 25.08.2011 (Annexure P6) is also common. However, to dictate orders, facts have been taken from CWP No.22369 of 2011 titled Natha Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurdaspur & others.
(2.) Vide the award dated 25.08.2011, the Labour Court, Gurdaspur answered the references against the workmen and in favour of the respondents under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act'). The plea of the Municipal Council that the workmen were covered under Section 2 (oo)(bb) and it was a contractual appointment, was accepted and they were held not entitled to the relief of reinstatement.
(3.) A perusal of the record would go on to show that the workman pleaded that he was employed on 01.09.1993 as a Keyman (controlling the flow of water) which was regular and perennial nature of and he was drawing salary of Rs.2500/- per month and he remained in employment till 31.03.2002. The respondent-Municipal Council, Pathankot had resorted to unfair labour practice and engaged him on contract basis. There was no break in his service and inspite of a policy of regularisation dated 23.01.2001, which provided that persons having 3 years of service were entitled to be regularised, his services were terminated without issuing any notice, show cause notice, enquiry or without making the payment of retrenchment compensation and this act of respondent No.3 amounted to unfair labour practice and in violation of the terms of Section 25-F of the Act and that new appointments were also made through backdoor entry and juniors were also working and accordingly, violation of Sections 25-G & 25-H of the Act were also alleged. It was further submitted that the workman was unemployed.;