GENERAL MANAGER HARYANA ROADWAYS Vs. RUDHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by special leave, has been filed against the judgment and order dated 14-5-2001 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging the award of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak directing reinstatement of the respondent Rudhan Singh with continuity of service and 50% back wages was dismissed.

(2.) The respondent Rudhan Singh was appointed in various capacities on a class IV post with the appellant Haryana Roadways and he worked from 16-3-1988 to 28-2-1989 with some breaks. Thereafter, he was not given any appointment. He raised a demand for being reinstated before the Conciliation Officer, Rohtak on 24-8-1991. The conciliation efforts having failed the State Government exercising powers under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act) made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak as to whether the termination of service of the respondent is justified and valid, and, if not, to what relief he was entitled under law.

(3.) In his claim statement the respondent pleaded that he was appointed as Helper on 16-3-1988 on daily wage basis. His work and conduct was always satisfactory but his services were terminated on 28-2-1989 without assigning any reason. He further pleaded that neither any notice nor wages in lieu of notice were paid to him and as he had completed 240 days of service in a calendar year, the termination of his service was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act and, therefore, the same was liable to be set aside and he was entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages. The appellant (management) filed a written statement on the plea that the respondent Rudhan Singh was initially appointed on daily wage basis for a fixed period from 16-3-1988 up to 31-3-1988. Thereafter, he was appointed as Washing Boy, Helper and Water Carrier as per the needs of the Department. According to the appellant the appointment of the respondent was for a fixed period which came to an automatic end and, therefore, it was not a case of retrenchment in view of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act and consequently Section 25-F of the Act had no application to the facts of the case. The respondent filed a replication controverting the pleas taken in the written statement and reasserting the contents of the claim statement. The parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their case. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court held that the respondent had worked for 264 days in one calendar year and, therefore, the termination of his service without complying with the requirements of Section 25-F of the Act was illegal as neither any notice nor salary in lieu thereof nor any retrenchment compensation was paid to him. Regarding back wages it was held that the same can be awarded to the workman keeping in view the actual loss suffered by him by remaining out of employment. Since the respondent was working on a class IV post and the said type of work was available in Haryana as large number of labourers come from Eastern UP and Bihar for doing that kind of work, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court concluded that it cannot be held that the respondent did not earn any amount during the period he was out of employment. It was thus held that the respondent was entitled to 50% back wages. Accordingly an award was passed on 26-5-2000 directing reinstatement of the respondent on his previous post with continuity of service and 50% back wages. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which was dismissed on 14-5-2001.