IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.10928 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 01.02.2010 Jas Rani ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Rajeshwar Singh Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Monica Chhibbar Sharma, DAG, Punjab. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of the award dated 19.10.2007 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur vide which the reference made on the demand raised by the petitioner stands answered against him. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had worked with the respondents from the year 1990 as Helper and continued as such till 31.3.1997 when her services were terminated by the respondents without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). He contends that in the cases of the co-workers of the petitioner, whose services were also terminated and were similarly placed as the petitioner, references were too made. An Award dated 5.11.2001 (Annexure P-4) was passed in their favour wherein they were directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits from the date of their termination till their actual C.W.P.No.10928 of 2009 -2- reinstatement. He contends that the petitioner cannot be discriminated against and, therefore, is entitled to the benefit of reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits and the impugned Award deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was appointed as Helper on daily wage basis under the Pre-Matric Scholarship Scheme sponsored and funded by the Central Government. The said Scheme continued till 31.3.1997 when it was closed. As no funds were received under the Scheme, the services of all the employees working under that Scheme were terminated. She contends that the petitioner was paid a consolidated amount of Rs.300/- per month as honorarium and her services were terminated on 31.3.1997. There were no arrears which were to be paid to the petitioner on her termination. Her contention is that since the petitioner was working under a Scheme and her appointment was made under that Scheme and with the conclusion of the said Scheme, her services also stood terminated. The termination of the services of the petitioner would be covered by the provisions of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act and, therefore, would not amount to retrenchment and, thus, no benefit under the Act can be claimed by the petitioner-workman with regard to the applicability of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Her further contention is that no persons junior to the petitioner have been retained by the respondents in service and it has been specifically admitted by the petitioner in her cross-examination that there were 25/30 other employees who were employed under the Scheme and no worker is working at present with the respondents. She, on this basis, C.W.P.No.10928 of 2009 -3- contends that the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of Section 25-G of the Act. It is not the case of the petitioner that any other person junior to her or fresh hand has been appointed by the respondents under the Scheme and, therefore, the benefit of Section 25-H also cannot be claimed by her. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The facts are not in dispute as the petitioner in her cross-examination has admitted that she was appointed under a Scheme sponsored and funded by the Central Government, namely, Pre-Matric Scholarship Scheme. She was appointed in the year 1990 and continued in service till 31.3.1997. It also stands admitted by the petitioner in her cross- examination that no hostel of the District Welfare Office is working or running. Having admitted the fact that she had been appointed under a Central Government sponsored and funded Scheme, the appointment of the petitioner was, therefore, for the term till the Scheme continued. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Scheme was not discontinued or it was thereafter revived. That being so, the termination of service of the petitioner-workman on completion of the Scheme which was sponsored and funded by the Central Government, would be covered by the provisions of Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act, which in no case would amount to retrenchment. Since the termination is not a retrenchment as defined under the Act, the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit under Section 25- F of the Act. As regards the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that similarly placed employees had filed references which have been C.W.P.No.10928 of 2009 -4- answered in favour of the workmen and they have been reinstated in service by the Labour Court vide award dated 5.11.2001 (Annexure P-4) the same would not be of any help to the petitioner as in that case, the respondents had failed to produce any evidence on record which could show that their appointment was under the Scheme and accordingly, their services were terminated on completion of the said Scheme. Further, it has not been pleaded by the petitioner that the said award has attained finality or that the workmen in whose favour the said award was passed have been reinstated in service and are continuing as such. Each case is to be dealt with and decided on the basis of the facts and circumstances as pleaded and proved before the Court. The evidence produced by the parties determines the fate of the case. If an assertion is made by a party and that assertion the party is able to prove by way of oral and/or documentary evidence, the findings of the Court would depend thereon. In the present case, since the petitioner has herself admitted that she had been appointed under a Central Government sponsored Scheme which was funded by it and she was being paid out of those funds by the respondents, the contention as raised by her counsel cannot be accepted. There is no discrimination in the present case as the Award under challenge before this Court is based upon the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties. As regards the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act have been violated, nothing has come on record which would suggest that either the juniors have been retained in service or fresh appointments have been made by the C.W.P.No.10928 of 2009 -5- respondents after termination of the services of the petitioner. As a matter of fact, it is an admitted position that after the closure of the Scheme on 31.3.1997, no person who was appointed under the Scheme, was retained in service and, therefore, there is no question of any fresh appointment under the Scheme when the Scheme itself stood concluded. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. February 01, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE