C.W.P.No.7854 of 1993 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.7854 of 1993 Date of Decision:- 23.03.2009 Haryana Rajya Bal Bhawan, Chandigarh through its Secretary ....Petitioner(s) vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Rohtak and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Som Nath Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ravi Verma, Advocate for respondent No.3. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present writ petition, challenge is to the award dated 2.4.1993 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak vide which the reference was answered in favour of the workman holding her entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity thereof and full back wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the workman was appointed as Caretaker under the Juvenile Justice Act Scheme at a consolidated salary of Rs.900/- per month and was posted at Haryana Rajya Bal Bhawan, Madhuban, (Karnal), vide appointment letter dated 26.4.1991 (Annexure P-1). He contends that since no child was admitted C.W.P.No.7854 of 1993 -2- in the Junenile Home since its inception, it was not found viable to pay salary to the staff without any work. Accordingly, vide order dated 9.1.2002 (Annexure P-2) the services of respondent No.3 were terminated as per her terms of appointment with immediate effect. On this basis, counsel contends that the termination of the workman was in consonance with Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which would not attract the provisions of Section 25- F of the Act as it was not a retrenchment as defined under Section 2 (oo) of the Act. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-workman submits that undisputedly the workman had completed more than 240 days of service with the petitioner-Management and since she had, under Section 25-B of the Act, worked with the respondents for one year, the provisions of Section 25-F having not been complied with, she would be entitled to the benefits as have been granted by the Labour Court vide the impugned award dated 2.4.1993. He further submits that the Scheme under which the workman was appointed had not come to an end and as per the appointment letter, her services could only be terminated in case the Scheme had come to an end. He, therefore, supports the award passed by the Labour Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case as well as the impugned award. The appointment letter dated 26.4.1991 (Annexure P-1) stipulates the following conditions:- “You are hereby offered the appointment of Caretaker at a consolidated salary of Rs.900/- per month and posted in Haryana Rajya Bal Bhawan, C.W.P.No.7854 of 1993 -3- Madhuban (Karnal) under J.J.Act Scheme. The appointment is purely temporary and your services are liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason therefor. In case you are interested, you may report for duty within 7 days of the issue of this letter to the Principal, Haryana Rajya Bal Bhawan, Madhuban, Karnal.” A perusal of these conditions would clearly indicate that the workman was appointed at a consolidated salary of Rs.900/- per month under the Juvenile Justice Act Scheme. The appointment was on purely temporary basis with a further stipulation that the services of the workman were liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason therefor. The admitted position, in the present case, is that the Scheme did not take off as no child was admitted in the Juvenile Home since its inception. That being so, the petitioner-Management in its wisdom came to the conclusion that it would not be viable to pay salary to the staff without any work. The termination, therefore, which followed was of all the employees under the Scheme and in the present case order dated 9.1.1992 (Annexure P-2) clearly shows that the termination was as per the terms of appointment of the respondent-workman. That being so, the provisions as contained in Section 2 (oo) (bb) would be fully applicable to the present case. Section 2 (oo) (bb) reads as follows:- Section 2 (oo) (bb) (oo) xxxx xxxx xxxx (bb) termination of the service of the workman as a C.W.P.No.7854 of 1993 -4- result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or (c ) xxxx xxxx xxxx Since the services of the workman have been terminated under a stipulation contained in the contract itself, the contention as raised by the counsel for the respondent-workman cannot be accepted as it would not fall within the ambit of Section 2 (oo) of the Act which deals with retrenchment. That being so, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act would not be attracted. Thus, the findings as recorded by the Labour Court putting reliance of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act cannot be sustained. In this view of the matter, the writ petition stands allowed; the impugned award dated 2.4.1993 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak is hereby set aside. March 23, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters ________ Yes/No