P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN, TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) The appellant is the petitioner in W.P. (L) No. 2286 of 2001. It is the Delhi Public School, , Bokaro Steel City through its Principal. The ' School gave employment to one Pratham Mahto in terms of a letter dated October 29, 1990. The letter informed Pratham Mahto that he was being offered ad-hoc appointment as a Cook-cum-General duties for the Delhi Public School Students/ Staff Facility Centre at Delhi Public School, Bokaro Steel City from October I, 1990 to March 30, 1991 effective from the date of his joining, on a consolidated salary of Rs. 900/- per month. It was also offered that in addition to the pay, he wil! also be provided free food facilities on all working days. The letter of offer specified that the services of Pratham Mahto will be purely temporary andean be terminated by one month's notice on either side. He was also informed that in case the Students/Staff Facility Centre was to be closed down due to any reason whatsoever during the period, his engagement wouldautomatically be considered as terminated. He was to be governed by the Delhi Public School Society Leave Rules. Pratham Mahto went into employment by accepting this offer. Though his term as per the letter ended on March 30, 1991, it is seen that he was allowed to continue" till January 2, 1992 and thereafter, he was not in the employment of the School. The dispute was raised on behalf of Pratham Mahto by respondent No. 2. Union. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court. The question referred was: "Whether the termination of service of Shri Pratham Mahto, Rasoiya-cum-General Duty Kamgar of Delhi Public School, Sector-4, Bokaro Steel city is proper? If not, whether he should be reinstated on work or/and should be given compensation?" The Union claimed in the written statement filed before the Labour Court that Pratham Mahto was a workman in the School and worked for more than 240 days and that his services could not be terminated except in accordance with the Industrial Disputes Act; that the School had violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act; that the termination was illegal and unjustified and that he was entitled to reinstatement.
(2.) The School on the other hand contended that the appointment of Pratham Mahto was only on ad-hoc basis for a fixed period; that he was not continued thereafter, that he was not entitled to any relief since no retrenchment was involved. It was also pleaded by the School that the Student/Staff Facility Centre under which a Canteen was being run and for which the ad hoc appointment was given to Pratham Mahto was closed and hence there was no need for a Cook- cum-General duties, for the School and that was the reason why the appointment of Pratham Mahto was not continued after January 2, 1992.
(3.) On behalf of the workman, 3 Bank Pass Book was produced to show that he was continued in the employment of the School even after March 30, 1990 and that he was allowed to continue till January 2, 1992 when his service was terminated. Another workman was examined as W. W. 1 who stated that normally appointments were made only on ad-hoc basis and in the case of some others, the appointments were subsequently regularised. The workman himself stated that he was employed not only as a Cook in the Canteen but he was also attending to other works like attending the telephone in the office of the Headmaster.;