- (1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the Labour Court Award dated February 15, 1995, notified on June 24, 1995, under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), by which the claim of the respondent-workman has been allowed holding that he had without (sic) completed 240 days in a calendar year and his services had been terminated complying with the requirements of Section 25-F and the case of the employee was not covered under Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the respondent-workman was appointed on daily wage basis in February, 1986. However after sometime, as the Project taken by the petitioner GVcompany was likely not to last for a very long period, the workman was given fixed-time appointment as Chowkidar from March 1, 1987 to March 31, 1987. He was further appointed on April 1, 1987 for a period of one month and another appointment letter was issued on May 1, 1987 extending the term of appointment upto July 31, 1987 and the last appointment order was passed on August 1, 1987, by which he was appointed for a period of three months and according to the petitioner, his services came -to an end automatically on October 31, 1987 by efflux of time in terms of the contract of service. However, the respondent-workman contended that making such appointments amounts to unfair labour practice under the provisions of Section 25-T of the Act and his services had been terminated just to deprive him from the benefits of the statutory provisions.
(3.) THE appropriate Government made a reference under Section 10 of the Act and the Labour Court recorded the finding as under: (1) The workman had worked for 240 days in a calendar year, if counted backward from the date of retrenchment; (2) retrenchment/termination was not in consonance with the statutory provisions, i. e. , Section 25-F of the Act; (3) appointing the petitioner for so many times amounts to unfair labour practice; (4) the said appointment letters, as mentioned above, could not be taken into account for the reason that the Management/employer did not prove the same; and (5) the case of the employee did not fall within the provisions of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act. and in view of the above, the order of reinstatement with all consequential benefits was made by the Labour Court, hence this petition. ;