Civil Writ Petition No. 9231 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 9231 of 2007 Date of Decision: 29.4.2008 District Food & Supplies Controller, Kaithal. …Petitioner Versus Dharam Pal and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Kadiyan, Advocate for respondent No.1. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. The present writ petition has been filed by District Food & Supplies, Kaithal, challenging the impugned award dated 20.12.2006 (Annexure P1) passed by the Labour Court, Ambala, whereby termination of respondent No.1-workman were held to be in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”) and it was ordered that respondent No.1- workman be reinstated with all consequential service benefits including continuity of service and full back wages. It has been urged before us by learned counsel for the Civil Writ Petition No. 9231 of 2007 2 petitioner-Management that respondent No.1-workman was appointed on contract pay basis at P.R. Kaithal on the consolidated charges of Rs.2,448/- per month from 1.8.2001 to 28.10.2001. Thereafter, he was re-appointed on 26.1.2002 upto 24.4.2002 and thereafter on 25.4.2002 upto 22.7.2002. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-workman has urged that respondent No.1-workman even though was appointed on contractual employment he has rendered services for 267 days in the 12 months preceding the date of termination and his nature of employment cannot be termed as casual employment or seasonal. It has been further urged that respondent No.1-workman was engaged in three consecutive terms with the petitioner and the same amounted to unfair labour practice. Learned counsel for the petitioner-State has relied on judgment of this Court in Suresh Kmar Sharma v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh and another 2006(4) Service Cases Today 672, wherein it was held that retrenchment has been defined in Section 2(oo) of the Act but the same does not include exception under Section 2(oo)(bb). Termination of the service of workman as a result of non-renewal of the contract or employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation shall not amount to retrenchment and Section 25-F compliance is not required. In the above said judgment, it has been held as under:- “...Therefore, the question of workman taking the plea that the matter falls within the purview of Section 25-F of the Act does not arise. It is not a Civil Writ Petition No. 9231 of 2007 3 case where the workman was continuously appointed with artificial gap of one day or so to say that the management was prone to unfair labour practice. A conjoint reading of the said offer and the extensions thereof (Anneuxres P-1 to P-3) clearly shows that they were contractual and were for a fixed term. In this backdrop the case of the petitioner-workman falls within the said exception of Clause (bb). It is thus imperative to conclude that the termination of the workman did not amount to retrenchment as the same was in consequence with the terms and conditions of his appointment/extensions. Thus, the services of petitioner have come to an end with efflux of time. Once the conclusion logically so arrived is that the termination of the workman from the employment did not constitute retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act, in our view there is no question of application of Section 25-F of the Act. Our this view finds support from a decision rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board v. Subhash Chand and another, 2006(2) SCT 23 (SC) : 2006 (2) Law Herald (SC) 1053. The Labour Court has rightly considered this aspect of the matter that the services of petitioner-workman were discontinued Civil Writ Petition No. 9231 of 2007 4 after the expiry of fixed term and it is not open to him to raise dispute under the Act by taking the plea of applicability of Section 25-F of the Act”. We find merit in the contention of the petitioner-Management. Hence, the present writ petition is accepted and award dated 20.12.2006 (Annexure P1) is quashed as in the present case Clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act is attracted and respondent No.1-workman is not entitled to the relief granted vide impugned award. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge (Ashutosh Mohunta) Judge April 29, 2008 “DK”