Civil Writ Petition No.1286 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Civil Writ Petition No.1286 of 1988 Date of Decision:17.09.2008 Swaran Singh .....Petitioner Vs. The Jallandhar Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jalandhar and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Ms. Deepinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Swaran Singh- petitioner for quashing the impugned award dated 13.7.1987 (Annexure P.1). The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner had put in 244 days of service with the respondent- Management as Junior Clerk, when his services were terminated on 9.12.1979. He raised an industrial dispute that his services had been illegally terminated. The dispute was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Jallandhar. Vide impugned award, the Labour Court held that his services were terminated in a legal and proper manner and he is not entitled to any relief or compensation. Feeling aggrieved therewith, he has filed this petition. In the written statement filed by the Jallandhar Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Jallandhar- respondent, it has been denied that the petitioner had completed 240 days' service. The Labour Court has given a finding of fact after perusing the entire evidence on record that the petitioner had completed only 230 days service, when he stood discharged Civil Writ Petition No.1286 of 1988 -2- from service after the expiry of stipulated period as per terms and condition of his appointment letter. His appointment was temporary on ad-hoc basis. After termination of his services, no ad hoc appointment was made against the post held by the petitioner. In fact, the respondent- Bank decided not to make any further ad-hoc appointments. All the vacant posts of Junior Clerks were filled up by advertising the posts in the newspaper in October, 1983 by making regular appointments in the year 1984. Lastly, it has been prayed that this petition may be dismissed with costs. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the findings returned by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court with due care and circumspection. Ms. Deepinder Kaur, Advocate appearing for the petitioner urged with great eloquence that the services of the workman were terminated to avoid the provisions of statutory period of 240 days. The posts were neither abolished nor regular appointments were made. The Management cannot circumvent the provisions of law. The termination of services in such a case is illegal. Such a practice is with a view to deprive the workman of the rights under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, `the Act') and is in violation of Section 25-B of the Act. Therefore, the Labour Court has gravely erred in holding that such a case of termination, where the petitioner was about to complete 240 days is not unfair labour practice. To fortify these submissions, she has relied upon the observations made in re: The Ferozepur Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Ferozepur v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another, 1985(2) Services Law Reporter 437, Kapurthala Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Kapurthala v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jullundur Civil Writ Petition No.1286 of 1988 -3- and others, (1984) 2 I.L.R. Punjab and Haryana 333. She further argued that in re: Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula and another, 2008(2) Services Law Reporter 12, the Apex Court observed that “in this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that as the appellant had worked only for a short period, the interest of justice will be subserved if the High Court judgment is modified by directing payment of a sum of Rs.50,000/- only by way of damages to the appellant by the respondent.” In view of these observations, if it is assumed that the service rendered by the petitioner has fallen short of 240 days, nonetheless, in the interest of justice some compensation ought to be awarded. To tide over these submissions, Mr. R.S. Bains, counsel for the respondent- Bank argued that the observations of the Labour Court in no manner can be faulted with. That being so, no compensation can be awarded to the workman. This contention merits acceptance. There is no gainsaying the fact that the petitioner was appointed for a specific and fixed term on ad hoc basis for 89 days. It implies that such appointment did not create any right or lien. The petitioner had to leave the job on the expiry of specific period. The appointment was purely temporary. As observed by the Labour Court, this service was on contract basis. There was a clear stipulation that in case of availability of regular candidates from the Apex Bank, Chandigarh, his services were liable to be terminated even earlier to the period specified in the appointment letter. No mala fide has been proved against the Management. Admittedly, after dispensation his services, no employee on ad hoc basis was appointed against his post. In the written statement, the respondent- Bank has specifically mentioned that it had decided not to make any further ad hoc appointment and no ad hoc Civil Writ Petition No.1286 of 1988 -4- appointment was made against the post held by the petitioner. All the vacant posts of Junior Clerks were filled up by advertising the post in the newspaper in October, 1983 by making regular appointments in the year 1984. The petitioner has not filed any replication to this written statement in controversion of these facts. Thus, presumably he has admitted these facts. In re: Crompton Engineering Company (Madras) Private Limited v. Additional Labour Cour t, 1975 Lab. I.C. 1006 , it has been held that “Under these circumstances, even though the respondents No.2 to 4 would come within the scope of the term “workman” in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, they would not be entitled to reinstatement as ordered by the Labour Court since there was no question of termination of their services or discharge of the workmen concerned as their employment itself was for a particular period or for a particular job and such employment came to an end automatically as soon as the term was over or the job was over. Under these circumstances, the award of the Labour Court in the present case cannot be sustained. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned award is quashed. There will be no order as to costs.” Harking back to the facts of the present case, there was no question of termination of the services or discharge of the petitioner as his employment itself was for a particular period. Such employment came to an end automatically as soon as the term was over. In view of Crompton Engineering Company (Madras) Private Limited (supra), no fault can be found with the observations made by the Labour Court. As per the impugned award, the petitioner had put in only 230 days service. This fact has not been denied in any manner on behalf of the petitioner. So, his case is not covered by the provisions of Section 25 of the Act. In re: The Civil Writ Petition No.1286 of 1988 -5- Ferozepur Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Ferozepur (supra), neither the posts were abolished nor regular appointments were made whereas in the case in hand, the regular appointments have been made after dispensing with the services of the petitioner. The facts of Kapurthala Central Cooperative Bank Limited's case (supra) are also distinguishable from the one in hand for the reason that here in this case regular appointments were made after dispensing with the services of the petitioner, who was well aware of the fact that as per the terms and conditions laid down in his appointment letter, his services could be discontinued at any moment and more to the point, his appointment was for a specific period. In paragraph No.6 of the judgment rendered in re: Mahboob Depeak's case (supra), it has been observed that “such termination of service, having regard to the fact that he had completed 240 days of work during a period of 12 months preceding the said date, required compliance of the provisions of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. An order of retrenchment passed in violation of the said provision although can be set aside but as has been noticed by this Court in a large number of decisions, an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed.” In that case, the workman had raised an industrial dispute contending that his services were to be regularized after three months of joining the services. This contention was accepted by the Labour Court. The workman had completed 240 days service in a calendar 12 months immediately preceding his termination. His services could not be terminated without compliance of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. It was under these circumstances that the damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/- were allowed to the workman. Axiomatically, the facts of the present case are Civil Writ Petition No.1286 of 1988 -6- poles apart from Mahboob Deepak's case (supra). As a sequel of the above discussion, I do not consider it proper to interfere in the impugned award in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this petition is dismissed. September 17, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE