- (1.) Challenge in this Civil Writ Petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the award dated 8.5.1988, Annexure P-2, passed by the Labour Court, Rohtak.
(2.) The factual position in a nutshell is as under :- The petitioner was initially appointed as Library Attendant on 12.11.1990 on temporary basis and he worked as such till 2.4.1991. Thereafter, he was again appointed as Library Attendant on 15.10.1991 and worked as such till 28.2.1992. Thereafter, the petitioner was again appointed as Library Attendant on temporary basis with effect from 21.5.1992 to 15.7.1992, then from 28.9.1992 till 28.2.1993 and finally for one month from 1.3.1993 to 31.3.1993. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner had worked for 241 days in a calendar year. The services of the petitioner were terminated after 31.3.1993 and no retrenchment compensation was paid. One Satish Kumar who was appointed as Library Attendant in the month of March, 1993 on temporary basis was made regular on 3.4.1993. The termination of the services of the petitioner was in violation of the provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). Left with no alternative, the petitioner served demand notice dated 13.7.1993 on the management. Conciliation proceedings could not succeed and, therefore, the case of the petitioner was referred to the Labour Court vide order dated 6.6.1994. Vide award dated 8.5.1998, the reference was declined and it was held that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief.
(3.) Respondent No. 2 contested the claim of the petitioner and pleaded in the written statement that the petitioner was appointed on purely temporary basis and since it was a part time temporary appointment, his services were terminated vide letter dated 30.3.1991 with effect from 2.4.1991. The appointment of the petitioner on part time basis, as Library Attendant cannot be added towards 240 days of service and he has not been employed at any point of time for 240 days. The petitioner was appointed every time for a fixed term and was relieved on the expiry of the fixed term. The father of Sh. Satish Kumar was a Peon in the College. On his death, his son Satish Kumar was employed and his appointment was approved by the Government vide letter dated 15.7.1994. The vacancy on which Satish Kumar was appointed was created as a result of resignation of Library Attendant. There was no violation of the provisions of Section 25(3), 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. The petitioner was not entitled to any regular appointment.;