IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.3755 of 2011 Date of decision : 3.3.2011 The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices ....Petitioner Versus Baljit Singh ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr.Vikram Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner has impugned the award dated 22.7.2010 passed pursuant to the reference claimed by the respondent-workman under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent-workman raised a demand saying that he had joined the services in the Post Office, E.D.Branch at village Thakarwal under the management on 23.3.1998 and he worked continuously up to 4.3.2000 when his services were terminated without passing any formal order and without paying any retrenchment compensation. He pleaded that he had completed 240 days and, therefore, the termination of his services without complying with the provisions of the Act was illegal. The petitioner pleaded that it was not an industry and the respondent-workman was not a workman. At the time of engagement C.W.P.No.3755 of 2011 -2- the respondent-workman had given an undertaking that he can be discharged from service on the availability of a regular incumbent and this undertaking was a part of the contract and, thus, his termination pursuant to the contract cannot be termed to be illegal so as to invite any action under the Act. The following issues were framed by the Tribunal :- 1. Whether the Postal department is an industry and the claimant is a workman under the Act? 2. Whether the termination of service of the workman is a retrenchment? 3. Whether the workman completed 240 days service in a calendar year immediately preceding his retrenchment and his retrenchment is violative of provisions of Section 25F of the Act? 4. To what relief is the workman entitled to? Thereafter, the Tribunal commenced to evaluate the material on record and concluded that the action of terminating the services of the workman w.e.f 4.3.2000 without any notice and without paying the retrenchment compensation was unauthorised and illegal and he was held entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Against the award of the Tribunal in the instant writ petition learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent was not a workman and, therefore, the award of compensation by holding him a workman whose services were terminated in violation of the provisions of the Act is illegal and C.W.P.No.3755 of 2011 -3- liable to be set aside. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the impugned award. The petitioner had employed the respondent-workman on temporary basis. If the plea of the petitioner is accepted that the services of the respondent-workman could be dispensed with on the availability of a regular incumbent, then they have not adhered to the said terms of the contract. The petitioner resorted to the employment of one Acheerpal Singh who was not a regular incumbent and replaced the respondent's services with him. As per the saying of the petitioner itself an attempt was made for inducting a regular appointee from employment exchange which did not fructify. The Tribunal was, thus, right in evaluating that the petitioner had replaced the services of the respondent with that of another temporary workman and was, thus, right in concluding that the retrenchment of the respondent's services came within the ambit of Section 2(oo) of the Act. The witness produced by the petitioner also did not dispute the fact that the respondent continuously worked from 23.3.1998 to 4.3.2000. Once there is a categoric admission of the witness produced by the petitioner that the respondent had worked from 23.3.1998 to 4.3.2000, it amounts to acceptance of the claim raised by the respondent. The exercise of dispensing with the services of the respondent and replacing him with another temporary employee also reflects unfair labour practice. After appreciating the material the Tribunal observed that since the appointment was not through a proper channel, there was no C.W.P.No.3755 of 2011 -4- need to grant the relief of reinstatement and compensated the petitioner with Rs.50,000/- as costs. To the mind of this Court, the approach of the Tribunal was judicious. Consequently, the findings do not warrant any interference. Dismissed. 3.3.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss