- (1.) The petitioner-council is aggrieved by the award dated 8.9.2003 passed by respondent No. 1, thereby ordering re-instatement of respondent No. 2 with continuity of service and 50% back wages.
(2.) What emerges out from record is that respondents No. 2 workman raised an industrial dispute thereby questioning the termination of his services by the petitioner. His grievance was that his services were terminated without complying with due procedure as he was neither served with any notice nor any retrenchment compensation was paid to him. On failure of conciliation proceedings before the appropriate Government, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The stand of the workman before the Labour Court was that he had worked with the petitioner from 26.6.1995 to 31.10.1997 continuously against permanent post of Octroi Clerk. However, on 1.11.1997 his services were terminated without adopting any due procedure and without paying any retrenchment compensation. The claim of the workman was resisted by the petitioner-council on the ground that the case of the workman is covered by Clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act), as his appointment was contractual for a specific work. It was also averred that the workman served the petitioner from August 1996 to October 1997 intermittently and thereafter his services were dispensed with in the light of the instructions dated 12.6.1997 of the State Government, which provides for replacement of employees appointed on ad hoc/89 days basis/temporary/work charge/daily wages by regular selected candidate. It is also pleaded that since there was no vacancy of Octroi Clerk, therefore, no further appointment was made in place of the workman either on regular or ad hoc basis. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the issues were settled by the Labour Court. Both the parties led their respective evidence in support of their pleas.
(3.) The Labour Court, on the basis of evidence adduced before it, held that the workman had served the petitioner from 26.6.1995 to 31.10.1997 and that his services were terminated in violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Accordingly, the Labour Court set aside the termination of the services of the workman and as said above ordered his re-instatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages.;