C.W.P.No.11892 of 2003 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.11892 of 2003 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 17.05.2010 The Distt.Welfare Officer and another ....Petitioner(s) vs. Jagdish Kumar and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Ms.Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the petitioner. Mr.Sarwan Sehgal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. Challenge to the Award dated 16.1.2003 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Labour Court, Ludhiana has been posed by the petitioner in the present writ petition wherein the Labour Court, Ludhiana, has answered the reference in favour of the respondent-workman holding him entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service without back-wages. Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1- workman was appointed as Chowkidar-cum-Sweeper on a consolidated honorarium of Rs.600/- per month on 18.10.1995 under the Pre-matric Scholarship Scheme sponsored and funded by the Central Government on 89 days basis. The said appointment was purely temporary at Aman Nagar Hostel, Ludhiana under the Scheme 'Pre-matric Scholarship'. This 89 days' temporary appointment was made with the condition that the services of the C.W.P.No.11892 of 2003 (O&M) -2- workman can be dispensed with at any time without any notice and he can be appointed for another period as per requirement from time to time. The Scheme continued till 30-9-1997 when it came to an end. There was no question of granting further appointment to respondent No.1-workman after the closure of the above-said Scheme on 30.9.1997. There were no arrears which were to be paid to the respondent-workman on termination of his services. As the respondent-workman was appointed and was working under a Scheme, his services stood terminated automatically with the closure of the said Scheme. The termination of services of the petitioner would not amount to retrenchment and would be covered by the proviso (bb) to Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent- workman was, thus, not entitled to any benefit under Section 25-F of the Act as his termination would not amount to retrenchment. She contends that the order of reinstatement has been passed by the Labour Court vide the impugned Award merely on the ground that the workman had completed more than 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination and while terminating the services of the workman the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act had not been complied with. Since Chapter V of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would not be applicable to the case where there is no retrenchment, the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. She has placed reliance upon a judgment passed by this Court in Jas Rani vs. State of Punjab and others, (CWP No.10928 of 2009) on 1.2.2010 where again the Scheme under which the respondent-workman had been appointed, was under consideration of this Court and the termination of services of the workman on conclusion of the Scheme was held, by this Court, to be C.W.P.No.11892 of 2003 (O&M) -3- covered by the proviso (bb) to Section 2(oo) of the Act. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No.1-workman has submitted that although the respondent-workman was appointed under the Pre-matric Scholarship Scheme but still as he had completed more than 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination, he was entitled to the protection of Section 25-F of the Act. The Award passed by the Labour Court is in accordance with law as the termination of the services of the respondent-workman was in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Respondent No.1-workman was appointed under a Scheme on a consolidated honorarium of Rs.600/- per month. The Pre-matric Scholarship Scheme was sponsored and funded by the Central Government. The services of the respondent-workman had been terminated on closure of the Scheme. It is not the case of the respondent-workman that any person junior to him was retained in service or was appointed after his termination under the said Scheme nor it is his case that the Scheme after being discontinued, had been revived thereafter. That being so, the termination of the services of the respondent-workman on closure of the Scheme which was sponsored and funded by the Central Government, would be covered by the proviso (bb) to Section 2 (oo) of the Act, which states that “retrenchment” does not include termination of services of the workman as a result of non-renewal of contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being C.W.P.No.11892 of 2003 (O&M) -4- terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein and, thus, would not amount to retrenchment. Since the termination of the services of the workman is not a retrenchment as defined under the Act, the respondent- workman would not be entitled to the benefit under Section 25-F of the Act. In view of the above, the impugned Award dated 16.1.2003 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Labour Court, Ludhiana is not in accordance with law and deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned Award dated 16.1.2003 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Labour Court, Ludhiana is hereby set aside. May 17, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE