COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH CORUT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 1557/2001 (Old No. 16797/1998) Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Tel Bhawan, Dehradun ……..Petitioners Versus Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Pandungar, Kanpur And Other ………..Respondents Sri Gopal Narian, Advocate holding brief of Sri J.P. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri D.S. Patni, learned Counsel for the workman/respondent no.2. 3 rd July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the award dated 31.12.1997 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court in Industrial Dispute No. 53 of 1993. The impugned award is contained in Annexure 7-A to the writ petition. The dispute referred to the Labour Court was as under: “Was the workman Sri Rakesh Kumar Chauhan S/o Sri Chaman Lal Chauhan is a contract worker as per the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. If not, whether the action of the management of O.N.G.C. in terminating the services of workman w.e.f. 1.1.1991 is justified? If not,to what relief the workman is entitled to?” 2. After considering the evidence on record, the Labour Court held that the workman was a direct employee of the ONGC and not a contract labour. The Labour Court recorded a clear cut finding that the workman had completed 240 days in a year and, therefore, there was violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and accordingly, it gave an award for reinstatement of the workman with back wages. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to argue on the basis of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board & Another v. Sudesh Kumar Puri reported in (2007) 2 SCC 428, wherein the Court had considered the case of a contract labour and accordingly held that if the contract of employment was not renewed, it will not amount to retrenchment in view of the provisions of Section 2(00) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Apex Court held the workman as a contract labour on the fact that the appointment was for a specific period and conditional one that on the appointment of regular Meter Reader, the engagement was to be dispensed with. Here in the present case, the workman has been engaged continuously from May, 1985 to December, 1990 and after every two or three months, the appointment letter was issued. Thus, such continuity of issuance of appointment letters itself shall not make the appointment on contract basis. It was also not conditional one. In case of Punjab State Electricity Board supra, the engagement was as a private Metre Reader. In the said case, the contract clearly governs the conditions also. 4. Since the workman has worked for more than 240 days, which is admitted by the petitioner in para 10 of the writ petition, therefore, termination of the services of the petitioner without any notice or pay in lieu thereof or payment of compensation, was in violation of Section 25- F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In a catena of judgments, the Apex Court on violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act has held that requirement prescribed by Section 25-F is a condition precedent for the retrenchment of the workman and that no workman shall be retrenched until the condition in question has been satisfied. It is difficult to accede to the argument that when the section imposes in mandatory terms a condition precedent, non-compliance with the said condition would not render the impugned retrenchment invalid. 5. For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any error in the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court. The petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 3.7.2008 Prabodh