IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 8429 of 2008. Date of Decision : January 28, 2009. Jaswinder Kaur ..... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurgaon, and others .... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present: Mr. G.P. Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Khungar, Advocate, for the respondents No. 2 to 4. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner- workman challenging the award dated 04.06.2006 (Anneuxre-P-9), passed by the Labour Court, Gurgaon, vide which the reference made to the Labour Court by the appropriate Government stands rejected against the workman. Counsel for the petitioner contends that it is not in dispute that the workman has completed 240 days with the respondents. It is also not in dispute that the workman had been continuing with the respondents since 09.03.1982 till her services were terminated on 08.05.1995. He relies upon the initial appointment letter dated 01.03.1982 (Annexure-P-1) to submit that this appointment of the workman on the post of Craft Teacher was on regular basis as is apparent for the reason that the period of probation of one year was C.W.P. No. 8429 of 2008. specifically mentioned therein. He submits that in the light of that appointment letter, the workman had continued with the respondents and therefore, the services of the workman were terminated taking a plea that she was a project worker and on completion of the work, her services were no more required. Further submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents have failed to relate the services of the workman with the project i.e. D.W. project which is alleged to have come to an end leading to the dispensing with services of the workman. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that persons junior to the workman namely Ms. Nirmala Grover has been retained in service whereas the workman's services have been dispensed with which is in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Counsel for the respondents while supporting the award takes a stand that in the year 1990, the appointment letter dated 26.07.1990 copy whereof has been placed on record by the petitioner as Annexure-P-2, the workman was appointed as a Craft Teacher on part time basis in the D.I.C. project wherein it was specifically mentioned that her appointment would be for a duration the project continues and if there is availability of funds. This appointment letter further states that the services of the workman could be dispensed with by giving one month notice. He in the light of this document further submits that D.I.C. Project came to an end and thereafter, the workman was appointed in another project i.e. D.W. Project. He submits that on completion of the said project, the services of the workman were dispensed with as per the terms of appointment letter and further he submits that all craft centres which were being run by the respondent society stood closed due to non availability of financial support -2- C.W.P. No. 8429 of 2008. resulting in termination of all craft teachers working in those projects. He further submits that Ms. Nirmala Grover who was appointed initially as a craft teacher, was given an offer on the post of Receptionist who accepted the same. Further the petitioner was also given an offer but the same was not accepted by her. I have gone through the impugned award dated 04.06.2004 (Annexure-P-9), passed by the Industrial Disputes-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon. Perusal of the same would show that the findings have been recorded that the services of the workman have been terminated on completion of the projects and therefore, the workman was not entitled to the benefit under the Industrial Disputes Act. Further a finding has also been given that Section 25-G of the Act would not come into effect for the reason that the nature of alternative appointment given to Ms. Nirmala Grover was not on the post of Art and Craft teacher, on which post the workman was working. The statement Annexure-P-7 has been referred to by counsel for the petitioner to substantiate his submission that no details have been mentioned about the project on which the workman is alleged to have worked but the perusal of the same would show that it has been specifically stated by Amba Parsad, Secretary of the respondent institution who appeared as M.W.1 that initially the workman was appointed in the year 1990 in the D.I.C. project as Stitching Teacher (Craft Teacher). When D.I.C. project was completed thereafter, the workman was appointed in the D.W. project. On completion of this project, the services of the workman were terminated vide Ex. M.6. Further perusal of the statement would show that copy of the budget of D.W. project in which the workman was working and on its closure, her services were terminated, was placed on -3- C.W.P. No. 8429 of 2008. record as Ex.M.7. Therefore, the contention of counsel for the petitioner that there was nothing on record which would show and specify the project, cannot be accepted. The further contention of counsel for the petitioner that the workman was not appointed on contract basis but was appointed on regular basis to some extent may be correct when we peruse the order of appointment (Annexure-P-1) but the subsequent appointment letter dated 26.07.1990 (Anneuxre-P-2) which is Ex. M.4 before the Labour Court, would show that her appointment was for a specified period with a rider that it was to continue till the available funds. The ground for termination was also specified thereunder i.e. in case of completion of the project or non availability of the funds. Having accepted the said offer by the workman it cannot now be said that she was not working in the project. The evidence which has been produced and adduced before the Labour Court by the respondents go a long way to show that the services of the workman as a matter of fact stood terminated on the basis of completion of the project, and therefore, Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act would not come into play as the termination of the workman would be covered by clause (bb) of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act which would not be retrenchment. The further contention of counsel for the petitioner that Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act has been violated, also would not be of any help to her because the post on which Ms. Nirmala Grover was re-appointed is not the same post on which the workman (i.e. Art and Craft Teacher) was working as Ms. Nirmala Grover was appointed on the post of Receptionist and has continued as such. -4- C.W.P. No. 8429 of 2008. In the light of the above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned award, therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 28,2009. sjks. -5-