Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.1267 of 2001 (Old No.4042 of 1998) Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Ranipur, hardwar through its Executive Director ……… Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Dehradun and another. ………. Respondents. WITH Writ Petition (M/S) No.1449 of 2001 (Old No.3875 of 1998) Jogendra Singh Thakur ……. Petitioner Versus General Manager (P & A) BHEL Hospital Ranipur Haridwar and others. …… Respondents ……………….. Sri Rahul Consul Advocate, holding brief of Sri Sudhanshu Dhulia, learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner- BHEL. Sri I.S.Mehra, learned counsel for the respondent-Sri Jogendra Singh Thakur. Date: July 31,2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. Both these writ petitions have been filed challenging the same award dated 30.08.1997 passed by Labour Court in Adjudication Case No.10 of 1995, which was published on 09.12.1997. Hence these petitions are being decided by this common order. 2 2. On the dispute raised by workman-Jogindra Singh Thakur, matter was referred by the U.P. Government, vide notification dated 02.12.1994 to the Labour Court for adjudication of the case. The case of the workman in brief is that on his application he was appointed on ad hoc basis on the post of staff nurse (Male) in the employer hospital with effect from 12.3.1993. He worked continuously upto one year but on 06.03.1994 his services were terminated without any prior notice and without any compensation in lieu of notice. It was also the case of workman that no chargesheet was served upon him and after his termination, some other persons were appointed on the post of staff nurse (Male) which shows that work of staff nurse was perennial in nature and the employer hospital was in need of staff nurse. 3. The employer stated that the workman-Jogendra Singh Thakur was appointed on ad hoc basis on the post of staff nurse (Male) for limited period from 12.03.1993 to 31.05.1993 and that his services could be terminated earlier as and when regular appointment to the said post is made. It was specifically mentioned in the appointment letter that his services will come to an end on 31.05.1993. Since the process for regular appointment was taking its own time, the workman was issued appointment letter time to time and lastly appointment letter was issued to him for the period 11.12.1993 to 05.03.1994. Thereafter the contract of his appointment was not renewed or extended on account of the fact that letters for regular appointment were issued and the services of the workman were not required. Since two women candidates did not join on the post of staff nurse by the time, the respondents held interview on 09.4.1994 for ad hoc 3 appointment in which the workman was also called. He was not selected and the two other candidates were selected for the period of three months and after the expiry of said period their services were not extended as in the meanwhile the two women candidates, to whom regular appointment letters were issued earlier, joined in June 1994. 4. The grievance of the workman is that so far as the award relates to not reinstating and regularizing him in service is bad in law. On the contrary the grievance of the employer is that the Labour Court has erred in holding that inspite of the appointments being made for fixed term, non-renewal of the contract amounts to retrenchment, which is wholly illegal and against the law. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the impugned award. I find that on the pleadings of the parties the Labour Court framed the issues and came to the conclusion that reference is not bad in law and the case of the workman comes within the definition of retrenchment but since the posts have been filled in by a regular selection process, it will not be practical to order for reinstatement of workman in service. In my opinion, the Labour Court has not committed any manifest error of law and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, rightly awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as litigation expenses to the workman. The impugned award does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The matter is concluded by finding of fact and does not require any interference. 4 6. Both the writ petitions are hereby dismissed. The impugned award is affirmed. No order as to costs. (P.C.Verma,J.) 31.07.2008 P.Singh