Civil Writ Petition No.3248 of 1999. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No.3248 of 1999. Date of decision:28-1-2008 Ajay Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus The Presiding Officer and another. ...Respondents. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present: Mr. Namit Kumar Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent No.2. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. Challenge in this Civil Writ Petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the award dated 8.5.1988, Annexure P-2, passed by the Labour Court, Rohtak. The factual position in a nutshell is as under:- The petitioner was initially appointed as Library Attendant on 12.11.1990 on temporary basis and he worked as such till 2.4.1991. Thereafter, he was again appointed as Library Attendant on 15.10.1991 and worked as such till 28.2.1992. Thereafter, the petitioner was again Civil Writ Petition No.3248 of 1999. -2- appointed as Library Attendant on temporary basis with effect from 21.5.1992 to 15.7.1992, then from 28.9.1992 till 28.2.1993 and finally for one month from 1.3.1993 to 31.3.1993. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner had worked for 241 days in a calendar year. The services of the petitioner were terminated after 31.3.1993 and no retrenchment compensation was paid. One Satish Kumar who was appointed as Library Attendant in the month of March,1993 on temporary basis was made regular on 3.4.1993. The termination of the services of the petitioner was in violation of the provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). Left with no alternative, the petitioner served demand notice dated 13.7.1993 on the management. Conciliation proceedings could not succeed and, therefore, the case of the petitioner was referred to the Labour Court vide order dated 6.6.1994. Vide award dated 8.5.1998, the reference was declined and it was held that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. Respondent No.2 contested the claim of the petitioner and pleaded in the written statement that the petitioner was appointed on purely temporary basis and since it was a part time temporary appointment, his services were terminated vide letter dated 30.3.1991 with effect from 2.4.1991. The appointment of the petitioner on part time basis, as Library Attendant cannot be added towards 240 days of service and he has not been employed at any point of time for 240 days. The petitioner was appointed every time for a fixed term and was Civil Writ Petition No.3248 of 1999. -3- relieved on the expiry of the fixed term. The father of Sh.Satish Kumar was a Peon in the College. On his death, his son Satish Kumar was employed and his appointment was approved by the Government vide letter dated 15.7.1994. The vacancy on which Satish Kumar was appointed was created as a result of resignation of Library Attendant. There was no violation of the provisions of Section 25(3), 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. The petitioner was not entitled to any regular appointment. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record of the case. The petitioner worked with respondent No.2 as Library Attendant on part time basis for the period noted below:- 12.11.1990 to 2.4.1991. 15.10.1991 to 28.2.1992. 21.5.1992 to 15.7.1992. 28.9.1992 to 28.2.1993. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Labour Court has committed an error in not counting the period of service from 21.5.1992 to 15.7.1992. If that service is taken into account , in that case, the petitioner has completed 240 days in the last calendar year of 1992-1993. His services could not be terminated without compliance of provisions of Section 25F of the Act. It is further submitted that Satish Kumar who was appointed after the petitioner has been kept in service and as such the termination order is Civil Writ Petition No.3248 of 1999. -4- violative of Section 25G of the Act also. The petitioner was not appointed on regular basis but was working for a fixed period. Sub clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act reads as under:- (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;” Since the period for which the petitioner was employed has expired, as such the employer was not legally bound to keep the petitioner in service in view of abovesaid provisions of law. Otherwise also,the Courts time and again have deprecated the back door entry in the Government service. In Divisional Forest Officer (Social), Hisar Versus Krishan Kumar and another, Civil Writ Petition No.267 of 2007 decided on 31.8.2007, this Court after relying upon various Supreme Court authorities has held that Section 25F is not attracted even if the workman has completed 240 days when he was employed as a casual labourer on daily wages or for a fixed period. So far as the the submission that there is violation of Section 25G is concerned, the learned Labour Court has dealt with this aspect of the case. Satish Kumar was appointed on compassionate grounds. So, it cannot be said that Section 25G has been violated. Civil Writ Petition No.3248 of 1999. -5- So, in view of above discussion, there is no merit in this writ petition and consequently the same stands dismissed. January 28,2008. ( K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge Civil Writ Petition No.3248 of 1999. -6-