CWP No. 5009 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 5009 of 2010 Date of decision: 07.09.2011 Ravinder Balwan ...Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Gurgaon and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Pankaj Jain , Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Mahender Singh Chahal, Advocate for the respondents. *** RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) Challenge is to the impugned order dated 09.10.2009 (Annexure P- 7) passed by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Gurgaon-respondent No. 1 whereby the Industrial Dispute raised by the workman-petitioner has been answered against the petitioner and he has been denied the relief of reinstatement with back-wages and for quashing the illegal act of The Mewat Development Agency, Nuh, District Gurgaon- respondent No. 2 terminating the services of the petitioner-workman The petitioner was appointed as Peon in the pay scale of Rs. 2300/- with respondent No. 2-department initially for 78 days and the same was further extended vide office order (Annexure P-1). The petitioner continuously worked from 09.03.2001 till 19.10.2002. On 19.10.2002, services CWP No. 5009 of 2010 -2- of the petitioner were dispensed with, without recording any reason (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, the petitioner raised a demand notice under Section 2 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Annexure P-3). Respondent No. 2 filed written statement to the claim statement admitting that the appointment of the petitioner was made. However, the respondent- management averred that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis hence his termination falls within exception as enumerated under Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. As per written statement filed by respondent No. 2, it was submitted that the services of the petitioner were not found satisfactory, thus, his services were dispensed with. Labour Court vide its award dated 09.10.2009 (Annexure P-7) has declined the reference of the workman holding that it is not proved that the workman worked with the respondent in a regular manner for 240 days in 12 months . Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure P-1 to show that the petitioner was appointed as Peon for 89 days vide letters/office orders dated 03.09.2001, 10.12.2001, 28.02.2002, 03.06.2002 and 29.08.2002. This fact has not been denied by the respondents Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of 'Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, Chd. And others vs. Baljinder Singh and another, 2006 (2) RSJ 314' wherein workman was repeatedly appointed on 89 days basis with notional breaks and it was held that such an act amounts to an unfair labour practice. It was not open to the management to allege that the CWP No. 5009 of 2010 -3- services of the workman had been dispensed with according to the terms and conditions. Heard. Workman rendered service in excess of 240 days in the 12 calendar months proceeding the date of his retrenchment i.e 19.10.2002. He was neither issued the mandatory notice envisaged under Section 25-F of the Act nor paid retrenchment compensation in terms of the mandate of Section 25-F of the Act. Termination of the services of the workman was in clear violation of the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act . Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 09.10.2009 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No. 1 is quashed and the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with 50% back-wages. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. No costs. September 07, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) G.Arora JUDGE