SURESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL,J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Petitioner') to challenge the Award (Annex -P -8) dated 10th May, 1979, made by the Judge, Labour Court, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Labour Court')
(2.) SHIV Shanker, respondent No. 2 hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent workman') was appointed as Conductor with the petitioner Corporation under order dated 29th December, 1973. The said appointment of the respondent workman was made on temporary basis for a period of two months. In pursuance of the said order the respondent workman joined duty on 31st December, 1973. The said appointment of the respondent workman was extended for a period of one month upto 28th March, 1974 by order 28th February, 1974. It was further extended upto dated 28th April, 1974. It was further extended upto 28th April, 1974 by order dated 27 March, till 28th May 1974 by order dated 2nd May,1974 and till 28th June, 1974 by order dated 3rd June, 1974. It was not further extended beyond 28th June, 1974 and the services of the respondent workman stood terminated on 28th June, 1974. The said termination of the services of the respondent workman gave rise to an industrial dispute and by order dated 30th June, 1978, the Government of Rajasthan referred, for, adjudication to the Labour Court, the dispute as to whether the termination of the services of the respondent workman by the Regional Manager of the petitioner Corporation was valid and proper and if not, to what relief the respondent workman was entitled. Before the Labour Court it was submitted on behalf of respondent workman that he was appointed on a permanent post and that his services were terminated without any reason. The case of the respondent workman was that making the appointment on a permanent post on temporary basis and in extending the said appointment from time to time amounts to an unfair labour practice and that such a temporary appointment was also violative of the standing orders of the petitioner Corporation. On behalf of the petitioner Corporation it was submitted before the Labour Court that the appointment of the respondent workman was for a fixed term and his services were terminated on expiry of the said term. It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioner Corporation that after the services of respondent workman were extended on 28th February, 1974 certain complaints were received against him and, thereafter his services were extended from time to time but as his work was found unsatisfactory his services were not extended further and they stood terminated on 28th June, 1974.
(3.) THE Labour Court, in its Award dated 10th May, 1979, has held that the fact that the services of the respondent workman were extended from time to time shows that he was appointed on a post of permanent nature and his appointment was temporary. The Labour Court has also held that under the standing orders the petitioner Corporation can make temporary appointment for fixed periods but such appointments are to be made for contingent reasons which are given in the standing orders and that none of the appointment orders produced before the Labour Court give any contingent reasons for the temporary appointment and, therefore it was established that the respondent workman was appointed on the job of a permanent nature. The Labour Court further held that the petitioner Corporation engages persons for jobs of permanent nature for very short periods and that the only reason for making such appointments is to get the cheap labour. The Labour Court found that the respondent workman had not completed 240 days within a period of one year and as such there was no question of violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but in view of the fact that the respondent workman was appointed on the post of a permanent nature it was necessary that regular procedure for dismissal should have been followed before the termination of the services of respondent workman. The Labour Court therefore, held that termination of the services of respondent workman was unjustified and deserved to be set aside and the respondent workman was entitled to be reinstated. But as regards the back wages the Labour Court directed that the respondent workman should not be given any back wages because he did not complete the satisfactory period and also because he did not perform any duties during this period. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid award of the Labour Court the petitioner Corporation has filed this writ petition.;