C.W.P. No.7273 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.7273 of 2002 Date of Decision: 13.11.2009 Mohinder Singh .....Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Vishal Malik, Advocate for Mr. Manjeet Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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) 1. The order of termination that is challenged before this Court is on the assumed basis that the workman had completed 240 days of service and that the award of the Labour Court refusing him the relief was unjustified. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that he had been appointed on 30.09.1991 and his service was periodically extended after the completion of every 89 days by fresh orders. That the last of such orders contemplated a termination of service on 25.05.1992 but he was continued to be employed beyond that period. It was brought out through the management's witness that C.W.P. No.7273 of 2002 -2- the workman had worked upto 31.05.1992. The contention of the workman is that he continued upto 08.06.1992 when he was terminated from service. There are no records or evidence, which support the contention that he was working on any day in June, 1992 but even if the evidence were to be reckoned as constituting an admission for the continuance of employment upto 31.05.1992, the question would be not merely the issue whether the workman had completed 240 days, the right of a workman to complain of a breach of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act arises only on the basis of the terms of employment and whether the termination of service was a result of retrenchment as contemplated by Section 2(oo). Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act itself provides for the benefit only at the time when a workman is “retrenched”. Section 2(oo) admits of certain exceptions and the most quoted exception is what is contained through clause (bb) appearing in Section 2(oo). The said clause reads as follows: "termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained thereunder." 3. The office order (Annexure P-1), which was issued on 30.09.1991 and placed before Court does not detail any specific C.W.P. No.7273 of 2002 -3- period but provides for a termination without assigning any reason. The office order dated 27.12.1991 states that the period of engagement was extended for a period of 89 days i.e. from 28.12.1991 to 25.03.1992 in public interest. This again was renewed by the order dated 03.04.1992 that the period was extended for a still further 89 days from 26.03.1992 to 25.05.1992. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the orders of extension were invariably made subsequent to the termination of the period but the employment continued without any letter. If there is a contract of employment, it shall certainly govern the rights of parties. If the workman obtained renewal of his employment only under the office order dated 03.04.1992, which delimited his period of service upto 25.05.1992, the mere fact that he had continued even beyond that period for few more days upto 31.05.1992 does not entitle him to any right greater than what the contract stipulates. If there had been a contract of renewal subsequently, such continuance could have been legitimatized. If there was no fresh contract, there was no legitimacy to his continuance and he cannot treat the termination to constitute retrenchment. The plea that merely because he completed 240 days of service, he shall be entitled to the application of the statutory mandate of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is untenable, for Section 25-F cannot be C.W.P. No.7273 of 2002 -4- read in isolation. It has to be first of all ascertain where resulted by the termination of service retrenchment. If there was any retrenchment but the termination that had been occasioned by the operation of a specific contract, which limited his period of employment, the workman shall not be entitled to make a complaint of violation of a statutory mandate contained under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It has to be emphasised that the workman was not complaining of any unfair labour practice or deliberate attempts of the management to introduce short duration intervals to prevent the workman from claiming benefits of continuous service. The plea on behalf of the petitioner complaining of the decision in the award is rejected and the writ petition shall, therefore, fail. 5. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 13, 2009 Pankaj*