In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh LPA No. 109 of 2009 Date of decision: April 17, 2009 Meham Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited ... Appellant Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak and another ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uma Nath Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. S.B. Kaushik, Advocate Amicus Curiae for the appellant. A.N. Jindal, J Balwan Singh, a workman under the appellant, was appointed as operator on daily wage basis under the management of the appellant on 1.1.1992 and his services were regularized after he completed 240 days on 12.10.1992. Despite that, the management terminated his services on 29.10.1992 without assigning any reason or much less reasonable cause. The service record of the respondent was good through out. On reference, the matter was taken up by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, who vide order dated 10.6.2008 while holding that his services were terminated illegally ordered his reinstatement on his previous post with continuity of service along with 50% back wages from the date of termination i.e. 29.10.1992. The present appellant filed a writ petition for quashing the order passed by the Labour Court alleging that Balwan Singh was engaged on daily wage basis as Manufacturing Coolie on 1.1.1992 and continued during the manufacturing season up to May, 1992. Thereafter for crushing season for the year 1992-93, the appellant advertised for appointing Magma Operator (seasonal). The respondent No.2 also applied against the advertised post, but was not selected. However, in order to strengthen the manufacturing department, it was decided to fill up some posts of Manufacturing Coolies (seasonal), on the basis of an interview. LPA No. 109 of 2009 -2- *** However, this post was not advertised. The respondent No.2 was offered the job of Manufacturing Coolie (seasonal), as such he joined on 14.10.1992. The respondent No.2 filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 14362 of 1992 before Hon'ble High Court for directing the appellant to allow him to work on the post for which he was selected. However, his writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail alternative remedy in accordance with law. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 served a demand notice dated 23.5.1995 alleging that his services were terminated on 29.10.1992 without compliance of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The aforesaid demand notice was replied accordingly. Thereafter the appropriate government having referred the matter for adjudication, the respondent No.2 filed a claim statement taking the plea that he had worked for more than 240 days, therefore, he was entitled to the protection under Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The appellant submitted a detailed written statement to the said claim stating that the workman had worked from 1.1.1992 to May, 1992 i.e. for 150 days only and from 14.10.1992 to 28.10.1992 i.e. 14 days only. It was also set up by the appellant that when once the workman worked for less than 240 days, provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable. Learned Single Judge, after perusing the records of the case dismissed the writ petition and decided the matter in favour of the respondent No.2. Having scrutinized the impugned judgment, no fault could be found with the order of learned Single Judge, who observed that the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court was well founded. Annexure P-1, the proceedings of the meeting of the Selection Committee, held on 11.9.2002 reveal that the respondent No.2 was appointed on a vacant post and he could not be turned out without holding any enquiry in accordance with said Rules. Records reveal that some persons were interviewed for the vacant posts and 14 persons were appointed against the said posts. The respondent was duly eligible to be appointed on the said post. It is not the case that he was either disqualified or no proper procedure was followed at the time of his recruitment. The letter of appointment dated 12.10.1992 does not reveal if his appointment was on temporary basis for LPA No. 109 of 2009 -3- *** fixed tenure, but it reveals that an offer on the job of Manufacturing Coolie (seasonal) was given to him against which he joined. As a matter of fact, the respondent appears to have been turned out by levelling allegations that he had absented himself and had not turned up on work which led to his termination from services. Thus, in such situation it was obligatory on the part of the department to follow the procedure as provided under law before initiating action against him. Admittedly, no such procedure was followed. Thus, his termination from service was against the rules of natural justice and fair play. No other point has been raised. Consequently, this appeal being unmerited is dismissed. (Uma Nath Singh) (A.N. Jindal) Judge Judge April 17, 2009 deepak