IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2437 of 1999 Date of decision: 28.07.2009 The Principal, Campus School, CCS, Haryana ....Petitioner Agriculture University, Hisar. versus Smt. Sarbati Devi and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, Advocate and Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Rana, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ---- 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 ? K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The award that is challenged before this Court is a direction for reinstatement with continuity of service and 25% back wages. The claim by the workman was that she had been employed as Sweeper from 1989 with the University and she had been orally terminated from her services in January 1996. The contention on behalf of the University was that she worked on a temporary basis in the year 1989 and her services were terminated and again taken pursuant to an agreement that was brought out on 13.07.1995 that stipulated a term of service from 13.07.1995 to 09.10.1995. Again a fresh agreement had been made on 16.10.1995, when she was offered employment from 18.10.1995 to 14.01.1996. She stopped coming for the University after 12.01.1996 Civil Writ Petition No.2437 of 1999 - 2 - and since her engagement herself was through a contract for a particular period and after the expiry of the said period, if she had not been offered employment it could not be termed retrenchment and it would be covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. The Labour Court had no more evidence before it than what the management proved through two distinct agreements that limited the respective periods of engagement upto 14.01.1996. The Labour Court found that workman had held 240 days of service but still held that the management had not clearly stated whether they had terminated her services under the agreement or she stopped coming from 12.01.1996 itself. It also referred to some decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts to say that Section 2(oo)(bb) could not be invoked in cases where the management had acted unreasonably and had no policy of regularization. It found the act of the management to be arbitrary or unconstitutional and directed reinstatement. 3. Several decisions relied on by the Labour Court have been expressly overruled by Secretary, State of Karnataka Versus Uma Devi- (2006) 4 SCC 1. If the engagement itself was for a particular period and it was by the terms of employment temporary the termination of employment as per the terms of the contract would not amount to retrenchment by virtue of the provision of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court was unjustified in holding that the non-regularization of the Sweeper was arbitrary or unconstitutional. No person serving as Sweeper in University could obtain right to regularization unless the relevant recruitment rules Civil Writ Petition No.2437 of 1999 - 3 - provided for a scheme for regularization or when the engagement was to a particular sanctioned post. It has not been shown that there had been any regular post to which the workman was entitled to be reinstated. When the term of contract specifically spelt out the employment to be temporary and delimited to a specified period, an order providing for reinstatement or directing regularization was just not proper. The disposition made by the Labour Court also ill-fits with the judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts in the aftermath of Uma Devi' case (referred to supra). 4. The award of the Labour Court is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. However, having regard to the fact that the workman was abruptly terminated from her service, she shall be paid a lump sum compensation of Rs.15,000/- recoverable from the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 28.07.2009 sanjeev