C.W.P. No.11741of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.11741of 2002 Date of Decision: 09.11.2009 The Bathinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., Bhatinda Milk Plant through the Managing Director .....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. Alok Jagga, Advocate for Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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 writ petition challenges the award directing reinstatement of the workman when he claimed that he had 240 days of service and that his termination was not in compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court found that the workman did not have 240 days but held, however, that the termination violated Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. Aggrieved against the direction for reinstatement, the management is before this Court assailing the award on the C.W.P. No.11741of 2002 -2- ground that the engagement had been under a contract for specific period and the termination that took effect was not in the nature of retrenchment under which alone either the provisions of Section 25-F or G could apply. Learned counsel refers me to the initial order of appointment (Annexure P-1) where he had been appointed as an unskilled worker for a temporary requirement that had arisen in the Account Section for specific period from 23.09.1987 to 22.12.1987. On 15.12.1987, an order was passed relieving the petitioner on 22.12.1987 as originally stipulated (Annexure P-2). But, however, a fresh engagement was made for the period from 14.01.1988 to 31.03.1988. A subsequent order was also issued (Annexure P-4) that recorded the fact that the workman had been terminated from service as per the terms and conditions of the contract of employment. On a third occasion, a fresh engagement was again made from 07.09.1988 to 06.12.1988 and an order was passed on 03.12.1988 that the workman was relieved from duty on 06.12.1988. It is this termination that gives rise to a dispute that it was illegally done. It shall be noticed that it was not the contention of the workman that there was any unfair labour practice, but the manner of engagement through contracts that stipulated specific period was an admitted fact. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the temporary engagements had been done by the management at the time when the establishment was still in its infancy and all the engagements C.W.P. No.11741of 2002 -3- had been only on temporary or ad hoc basis depending on the exigencies of availability of work. If the workman's engagement could be sourced to specific contracts, the termination that results from the completion of period would not qualify for the expression "retrenchment" and it shall be excepted therefrom by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The direction for reinstatement for alleged non-compliance of Section 25-F is under the circumstances found to be wrong and accordingly set aside. 3. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be however no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 09, 2009 Pankaj*