Civil Writ Petition No. 13734 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 13734 of 2007 Date of Decision: 29.4.2008 Health and Family Welfare Department, Punjab, Chandigarh, through Director Health Services and Others …Petitioners Versus Jaswant Singh and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the petitioner. Mr. Gurinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. The present writ petition has been preferred by Health and Family Welfare Department, Punjab, Chandigarh, through Director Health Services, Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Faridkot and Senior Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Village Bajakhana, District Faridkot, whereby they have challenged the impugned award dated 2.2.2005 (Annexure P6) passed by the Labour Court, Bathinda. Respondent No.1-workman Jaswant Singh was appointed as Safai Sewak on 89 days basis in the pay scale of Rs.750-1350 against the vacant post at Primary Health Center, Kotkapura, on 10.5.1994. After the expiry of each period of 89 days, extension was given Civil Writ Petition No. 13734 of 2007 2 to respondent No.1-workman from time to time and last appointment for 89 days basis was given to him by petitioner No.2-Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Faridkot, on 7.4.1997 and he worked with the petitioners upto 2.7.1997. Certain posts of Class-IV employees for appointment on regular basis were advertised in newspaper dated 7.6.1997 (Annexure P2). Respondent No.1-workman also appeared in the interview for regular appointment but could not be selected. Thereafter, regular employees joined on 2.7.1997 and therefore, the contractual services of respondent No.1-workman were not extended. Respondent No.1-workman raised an industrial dispute vide statement of claim dated 10.1.2003 (Annexure P4). In the written statement (Annexure P5) to the statement of claim, it was stated that on appointment of regular employee contract of the petitioner was not extended and he being a contractual employee his services can be dispensed with after the expiry of contract and the same will not amount to retrenchment and there will be no violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”). Learned Labour Court held that respondent No.1-workman had rendered service more than 240 days with the petitioners in the last 12 preceding months and, therefore, his termination is in violation of Section 25-F of the Act and ordered his reinstatement into service along with 40% back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 10.1.2003. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on judgment of this Court in Suresh Kmar Sharma v. Presiding Officer, Labour Civil Writ Petition No. 13734 of 2007 3 Court, U.T. Chandigarh and another 2006(4) Service Cases Today 672, wherein it was held that retrenchment has been defined in Section 2(oo) of the Act but the same does not include under Section 2(oo) (bb). Termination of the service of workman as a result of non-renewal of the contract or employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation shall not amount to the retrenchment, and Section 25-F compliance is not required. In the above said judgment, it has been held as under:- “...Therefore, the question of workman taking the plea that the matter falls within the purview of Section 25-F of the Act does not arise. It is not a case where the workman was continuously appointed with artificial gap of one day or so to say that the management was prone to unfair labour practice. A conjoint reading of the said offer and the extensions thereof (Anneuxres P-1 to P-3) clearly shows that they were contractual and were for a fixed term. In this backdrop the case of the petitioner-workman falls within the said exception of Clause (bb). It is thus imperative to conclude that the termination of the workman did not amount to retrenchment as the same was in consequence with the terms and conditions of his appointment/extensions. Thus, the services of petitioner have come to an end with efflux of time. Civil Writ Petition No. 13734 of 2007 4 Once the conclusion logically so arrived is that the termination of the workman from the employment did not constitute retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act, in our view there is no question of application of Section 25-F of the Act. Our this view finds support from a decision rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board v. Subhash Chand and another, 2006(2) SCT 23 (SC) : 2006 (2) Law Herald (SC) 1053. The Labour Court has rightly considered this aspect of the matter that the services of petitioner-workman were discontinued after the expiry of fixed term and it is not open to him to raise dispute under the Act by taking the plea of applicability of Section 25-F of the Act”. We find merit in the contention of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition is accepted and award dated 2.2.2005 (Annexure P6) is quashed as in the present case Clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act is attracted and respondent No.1-workman is not entitled to the relief granted vide impugned award. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge (Ashutosh Mohunta) Judge April 29, 2008 “DK”