IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7535 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision:28.04.2011 The Karnal Central Cooperative Bank Limited ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Jagdeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) CM No.14513 of 2010 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the writ petition is ordered to be restored on its original number. Civil Writ Petition No.7535 of 1989 2. The writ petition challenges an order of reinstatement granted by the Labour Court on a reference made when a dispute was raised by the workman that he had been unlawfully terminated from service on 15.06.1982 without following the mandate of law as laid down under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Civil Writ Petition No.7535 of 1989 (O&M) - 2 - 3. The workman had given the details of his engagement from 01.09.1981 till 15.06.1982 and pointed out that the Management was adopting unfair labour practice by giving artificial breaks and gave before the Court evidence of the periods of engagement as below:- “1.9.1981 to 28.11.1981 1.12.1981 to 27.2.1982 3.3.1982 to 30.5.1982 2.6.1982 to 15.6.1982” 4. The respondent contended that the workman was merely engaged as temporary workman and a regular selection process was done subsequently and in such a selection process, some other workmen had been appointed. It was the further contention that the petitioner was not entitled to claim that he was in regular service and that the termination did not amount to retrenchment, for, it followed the terms of contract of employment prescribing a specific period. It was an excepted case under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act that led to termination on the conclusion of the contract of employment. 5. On the basis of the evidence adduced between the parties, the Labour Court found that the fact that the workman had been employed for 240 days itself could not be denied and if it could be seen whether the workman's termination could not be treated as a retrenchment and one falling within the category of Section 2(oo)(bb), the Labour Court found that the termination of service was illegal and the workman had completed 240 days of service and the breaks which had been given in spells of 89 days amounted to unfair labour practice. Civil Writ Petition No.7535 of 1989 (O&M) - 3 - On such a basis, the Labour Court found that the workman was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. The Labour Court, however, denied to the workman back wages since the workman had not stated that he had unemployed during the period in issue. 6. I do not think, there is any error in the award of the Labour Court. The award is confirmed and the writ petition is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 28.04.2011 sanjeev