CWP No. 9943 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9943 of 2010 Date of decision: 26.05.2010 Punjab Mandi Board, Chandigarh ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda and another ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Jai Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 22.07.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of respondent No. 2-workman holding him entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity thereof and 20% back wages on the same initial terms and conditions i.e. as a part-time Sweeper. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal cannot be sustained on the ground that the appointment of respondent No. 2-workman was for a fixed term and, therefore, his termination would not fall within the definition of retrenchment CWP No. 9943 of 2010 2 as it would be covered by the exception (bb) of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. His further contention is that only a statement was made by respondent No. 2-workman that one Vipan Kumar was appointed in place of him as a part-time Sweeper but the said fact was not proved by any documentary evidence. He, on this basis, prays for impugned Award be set aside. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. The first contention, which has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner, is with regard to the termination being as per the terms of contract wherein specified period was provided for his appointment. On a question put by this Court with regard to the appointment letter Ex. M/1, counsel for the petitioner very fairly concedes that there was no fixed period provided in the appointment letter. In this view of the matter, the contention as raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the termination of the services of respondent No. 2-workman would be an exception to Section 2 (oo) as provided under clause (bb) thereof, cannot be accepted. A finding has been given by the Industrial Tribunal while dealing with the evidence which has been led by the parties to the effect that one Vipan Kumar was appointed in place of the workman after the termination of his services. The finding, which has been recorded by the Industrial Tribunal, is based on the evidence and the pleadings before it and there is nothing on the record to suggest otherwise. In view of the above, there is no merit in the present writ petition and, therefore, the same stands dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE May 26, 2010 pj CWP No. 9943 of 2010 3