Civil Writ Petition No.5186 of 2000. -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No.5186 of 2000. Date of decision:13-2-2008 District Red Cross Society, Sirsa. ...Petitioner. Versus Presiding Offier, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Hisar and another. ...Respondents. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present: Mr.Deepak Sibal Advocate for the petitioner. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. This Civil Writ Petition is by the petitioner seeking quashing of the award of Labour Court dated 26.3.1999,Annexure P-6. The Civil Writ Petition is founded on the averments of the petitioner that before 1992, there was no formal Blood Bank operating in the Government Hospital at Sirsa known as Civil Hospital. There was a facility for blood transfusion which was being looked after by the Civil Writ Petition No.5186 of 2000. -2- Medical Superintendent of the Civil Hospital. All the expenses were being paid by the Government and all receipts were also being received and deposited with the Government Treasury. This arrangement proved to be inefficient due to lack of sanctioned manpower. No further posts were created by the Government and, therefore, the public started complaining of the working of the blood transfusion facility at Civil Hospital, Sirsa. It is further pleaded that the Red Cross Society stepped into blood transfusion facility and was formally declared to be a Blood Bank. The Civil Surgeon, Sirsa applied for a licence from the Drug Controller, Haryana and the same was accordingly granted. A meeting was held between the Chairman of the Red Cross Society and the officials of the Civil Hospital, Sirsa on 4.12.1992 and it was discussed that the patients who come at night were not being served. The Red Cross Society asked the Medical Superintendent of Civil Hospital, Sirsa to make appointment of a suitable person to tie over the difficulty and it offered to pay Rs.2,000/- to him. Similarly, another meeting was held on 11.6.1993 in which certain other appointments were also permitted. In pursuance of above meetings, Kumari Sunita and Kumari Nikheta Samuel were appointed. It was specifically mentioned in their appointment letters that the posts being offered to them were purely temporary and were to continue till the funds were made available by the petitioner. It was further provided in the appointment letters that Civil Writ Petition No.5186 of 2000. -3- their services could be terminated without assigning any reason. Respondent No.2 joined in pursuance of appointment letter and she was paid by the petitioner out of the funds which were received in the Blood Bank and the expenses of the Blood Bank were also met from that account. The Director, Health Services, Haryana took a decision that all the proceeds of the Blood Bank should be credited to the Government Treasury and expenses should also be met from the same. This decision was conveyed to the Medical Superintendent, Civil Hospital, Sirsa through letter, Annexure P5. There being no income to the petitioner from the Blood Bank, the Government took over the project and the services of respondent No.2 came to an end as per terms and conditions of her appointment as no funds for her continuance from the District Red Cross Society, Sirsa were available. It is also pleaded that the matter regarding the termination of services of respondent No.2 came to be decided by the Labour Court and the Labour Court vide award dated 26.3.1999 answered the reference in favour of respondent No.2 to the effect that the termination of her services was neither in order nor justified. She was held entitled to reinstatement, with continuity, with all other consequential service benefits with 50% back wages, from the date of her demand notice dated 13.10.1995 till reinstatement. The petitioner being aggrieved against the said award has filed the instant Civil Writ Petition, seeking quashing of the same. Civil Writ Petition No.5186 of 2000. -4- Respondent No.2 controverted the averments of the petitioner and pleaded in the written statement that the appointment letter of the petitioner was followed by another letter dated 16.3.1995 issued by the Secretary, District Red Cross Society, Sirsa vide which her services and that of Nikheta Samuel and Ram Sumer were regularized. Her services were terminated by over-looking the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. She was an employee of the petitioner and was being paid salary by the petitioner. There was no contract between her and the Health Department regarding her appointment. Any action between the petitioner and the Health Department cannot affect her rights. Other similarly situated employees namely Ashwani Kumar and others have been retained whereas her services and that of Nikheta Samuel have been terminated and as such there is violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The said order is discriminatory as well as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The order dated 26.3.1999, Annexure P6, is legal and in consonance with the provisions of law. I have heard arguments of counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record of the case. Mr. Deepak Sibal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed by the Medical Superintendent, Civil Hospital, Sirsa. Previously, the District Red Cross Society was conducting the business of Blood Bank and Civil Writ Petition No.5186 of 2000. -5- thereafter the Government has taken over the Blood Bank. Since there was no work with the Society, as such the services of Kumari Sunita have been rightly terminated. I have carefully considered the said submission. Similar plea was raised before the Labour Court and the Labour Court has elaborately dealt with this aspect of the case in para Nos.15 and 16 of the award. That being a finding of fact cannot be interfered with in the writ petition. Mr. Sibal was fair enough to concede the fact that workman Kumari Sunita has been allowed to join but has submitted that in order to avoid Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, Kumari Sunita was allowed to join. The above submission cannot be accepted. In case there was no work with the Society, in that case, there was no occasion for the petitioner to allow Kumari Sunita to join the service. Mr. Sibal has further submitted that the Labour Court has wrongly held that two other employees were adjusted. Those employees were not Laboratory Technicians and as such their appointment does not attract Section 25G. I have carefully considered the said submission. No doubt, the other two employees were working as Clerk and Peon but since they have been adjusted in-spite of the plea taken up by the Society though there was no work so, the provisions of Section 25G are also attracted. Civil Writ Petition No.5186 of 2000. -6- No other point has been urged. In view of the above discussion, the petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. February 13,2008. ( K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge