Civil Writ Petition No. 10306 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 10306 of 2009 Date of decision:-01.09.2011 Jaswant Singh ...Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vinay Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G. Punjab for respondent Nos.4 and 5. RITU BAHRI J. The petitioner has challenged the Award dated 03.12.2008 passed by the Labour Court, Patiala whereby the reference has been answered against the workman. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk for six months with Municipal Council, Malerkotla on 28.12.1994 vide order dated 16.12.1994 (Annexure P-1). He was granted further extension vide resolution No.515 dated 15.6.1995 (Annexure P-2). His term was extended for a period of six months and he worked upto 04.3.1996. The services of the workman came to an end on 04.3.2006. Six persons were appointed for the same work on the post of Clerk vide office order (Annexure P-3) dated 20.5.1997. The petitioner was not called Civil Writ Petition No. 10306 of 2009 -2- by the Municipal Council in preference to six persons. He served a demand notice for appointment as clerk. The matter was referred to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vinay Arora, Advocate has argued that the Labour Court has not appreciated the controversy in the tru spirit. The petitioner had put in 240 days of work and after terminating him from service on 4.3.1996 the Department has gone ahead to join Jaswinder Kaur, Jai Parkash, Rashid Ahmed, Ajhar Ali Khan, Gurjant Singh and Kulwinder Singh as fresh appointees. There is non compliance of Section 25(h) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Even if petitioner's case is not covered under Section 25 (f) of Industrial Disputes Act as he was appointed on contract basis, the petitioner was entitled tobe re-appointed in compliance of Section 25(h) of the Industrial Disputes Act in preference to six persons appointed vide order dated 20.05.1997 (Annexure P-3). The Labour Court has gone wrong in coming to a conclusion that the workman's case is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the other hand has argued that in the first instance the petitioner was appointed for six months on 28.12.1994. He was relieved after a period of six months in June 1995. Thereafter, he was again appointed on contract basis on 04.9.1995 for a period of six months. This contract came to end on 3.3.1996. There was a gap of 2-½ months of service in between the two spells of service on contract basis. Subsequently, in the year 1997 the petitioner never applied at the time of recruitment of six persons. These posts are being filled up by the Municipal Committee, Maler Kotla. The six posts were filled up in the year 1999 after inviting the applications and necessary sanction from the higher authorities. The petitioner did not participate in the selection process, therefore, he has no right Civil Writ Petition No. 10306 of 2009 -3- to be reinstated once he was relieved on 4.3.1996 on expiry of six months contract. His case is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation Ludhiana versus Ram Pal 2006(2) LLJ 235 (SC) has held that in case of termination of service of a workman due to non-renewal of contract, such a termination is not retrenchment as per Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and neither Section 25-F nor Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act are applicable to such like cases. The writ petition is dismissed. 01.09.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE