- (1.) THE petitioner Society in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the award dated August 17, 1994 passed by the Labour Court, Jaipur in a reference made by the State Government under Section-10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act ).
(2.) THE claim of the non-petitioner-workman was that he was appointed as Typist-cum-Clerk on October 16, 1990 against a vacant post after due selection and calling application by advertisement. Initially, he was given appointment for two months and thereafter, vide order dated December 17, 1990, the period was extended upto March 31, 1991, but by another letter dated March 14, 1991, his services were terminated w. e. f. March 31, 1991. He then made a representation, on which the Honorary Secretary of the petitioner Society passed an order on March 18, 1991 that he be further appointed for one month and the performance of his work be examined, but, inspite of that he was removed from the service on March 31, 1991. It was also pleaded inter-alia that his removal from service was not on account of the fact that the Society had no work and one Sujeet Jain was appointed in his place from the very next day on April 1, 1991. That there was no compliance of the provisions of Section-25c and 25-H of the Act.
(3.) ON the other hand, the case of the petitioner-society was that appointment of the workman was made initially for a fixed term of two months which was extended upto March 31, 1991 vide letter dated December 17, 1990 and that the petitioner was not entitled for any relief in view of Clause (bb) of Section 2 (oo) which defines retrenchment. After recording evidence of the parties, the Tribunal recorded the following findings : (i) That the offer of appointment to the petitioner was made by the Selection Committee after calling applications by an advertisement in the daily newspaper Rajasthan Patrika. (ii) That the appointment was against a vacant post. The Tribunal did not accept the contention of the petitioner-Society that appointment of the petitioner was made for completion of extra work or to meet the situation of extra workload. (iii) That after termination of the petitioner one Sujeet Jain was appointed by the petitioner-Society on April 1, 1991 i. e. the very next date and he was doing the same work by change of nomenclature of the post as Office Assistant. That he was doing the same work and he was appointed in place of the petitioner. (iv) That appointment of the petitioner for a fixed term was against the spirit of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act which are meant to protect the workman from exploitation. (v) That there was non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sections-25g and 25h of the Industrial Disputes Act which are independent in nature. With the above findings the Labour Court held the termination of the service of the petitioner as invalid and consequently, the same was declared as null and void with a direction to reinstate the petitioner in continuity with 30% of the back wages. ;