HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.7782 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.08.2011 **** Haryana Financial Corporation . . . . Petitioner VS. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chd. & Anr. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Shailender Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. KK Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2 **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner-Corporation is aggrieved by the Award dated 02.09.2009 (Annexure P8) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh reinstating respondent No.2 with continuity of service as well as backwages amounting to Rs.75000/-. (2). The undisputed facts are that respondent No.2-workman was engaged on 04.08.1999 as a Peon on contract basis for a term ending on 02.11.1999. After giving a day’s break, respondent No.2 was again engaged upto 2.2.2000. In this manner, repeated extensions were granted to respondent No.2 till 16.10.2002 when his services were discontinued. No retrenchment compensation was paid to respondent No.2. CWP No.7782 of 2010.doc - 2 – (3). The question as to whether termination of services of respondent No.2 amounts to non-renewal of the contract in terms of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, ‘the Act’) has been answered by the Labour Court in favour of the workman holding that his repeated engagements were meant to deprive him of the statutory benefits under the Act and it amounted to ‘unfair labour practice’. (4). The fact that the workman was retrenched without paying retrenchment compensation makes out a case for his reinstatement in service as ruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1, Panipat (Haryana), (2010) 5 SCC 497 and Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2010) 2 SCC 543. (5). As regards the payment of backwages, the material on record as well as the impugned Award does suggest that the respondent-Workman remained in employment for some time. In any case his learned counsel fairly submits that subject to respondent No.2’s re-instatement in service he does not press for payment of backwages as awarded by the Labour Court. (6). In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed in part; the impugned Award (Annexure P8) is modified to the extent of it ordering payment backwages of Rs.75000/-, is 2 CWP No.7782 of 2010.doc - 3 – quashed. However, the direction regarding reinstatement of respondent No.2-workman with continuity of service is upheld. (7). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 10.08.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge 3