C.W.P. No.10954 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.10954 of 2009(O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 14.1.2011 Jagmal Singh PETITIONER VERSUS Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court-II, Gurgaon and another RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Harish Rathee, Senior D.A.G. Haryana. MAHESH GROVER, J. This writ petition is a result of the grievance of the petitioner against the award of the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Gurgaon passed on 11.11.2008. The petitioner who was appointed on contractual basis on 18.11.1996, continued on the same terms and conditions with respondent No.2, but on 28.3.2000, he absented himself. On 26.5.2000, a show cause notice was issued C.W.P. No.10954 of 2009 -2- to him and thereafter his services were terminated on 15.9.2000. Petitioner raised an industrial dispute that his termination was not in accordance with law and that the respondents had not paid him any retrenchment compensation and had not complied with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner pleaded that he had actually suffered injuries in the spine which prevented him from continuing with his service and that his absence from duty was on account of such injury and was not willful. The respondents pleaded that the petitioner was engaged as a Driver on 18.11.1996 on contractual basis and was asked to get himself medically examined. Since he had defaulted by remaining absent from service intentionally, a show cause notice Ex.D2 was issued to him and the petitioner submitted his reply dated 26.6.2000 which was duly considered by the competent authority and by an order dated 9.8.2000 the petitioner was called to appear in person on 16.8.2000 for personal hearing, but he failed to appear and instead, sent a letter Ex.D4 which was received on 22.8.2000 in which he pleaded that he was suffering from backache and was unable to attend to his duties. The petitioner had not denied that his services were engaged by the respondents on contractual basis. This factum is admitted before the Tribunal. Therefore, the respondents were well within their rights to terminate the services of the petitioner in the eventuality of his conduct being unsatisfactory. There is no necessity of holding an enquiry, as the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioner were governed by contractual employment. Even otherwise, the respondents resorted to the same exercise to enable the petitioner to join service. His plea that he was medically unfit, is not borne out from any record and the Tribunal rightly appreciated that the two certificates produced by the C.W.P. No.10954 of 2009 -3- petitioner Mark A and B were merely Photostat copies of the certificates and did not bear any date. On this unsubstantiated plea of his medical unfitness, the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to state that the case of the petitioner would amount to retrenchment as Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act defines retrenchment to mean termination of service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, other than the punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include - (a) voluntary retirement of the workman ; or (b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf ; or (bb) 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 therein ; or (c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, but am unable to persuade myself to accept the same. A contractual employment is governed by the terms and conditions of the appointment and in the eventuality of the employer finding the conduct of such an employee to be unsatisfactory, they are well within their rights to terminate the service of such a contractual employee and respondents are not obligated to suffer the consequences C.W.P. No.10954 of 2009 -4- of engagement of such an employee. The case of the petitioner for retrenchment does not fall within the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as has been pleaded by him. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. ( MAHESH GROVER ) January 14, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO