CWP No. 3990 of 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3990 of 1993 Date of decision: 22.02.2010 Sulekh Chand Sharma son of Shri Om Parkash ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala City and others ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Antal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the Award dated 17.12.1992 passed by the Labour Court, Ambala (Annexure P-14) vide which the reference has been answered against the workman. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was appointed as Secretary in the Sipianwala Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd. Sipianwala-respondent No. 3 and he joined as such on CWP No. 3990 of 1993 2 02.02.1983. He continued as such till 24.09.1984 when his services were terminated by the Managing Director of the Ambala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, Ambala City-respondent No. 2 vide order dated 03.09.1984. He contends that the petitioner had completed more than 240 days in service in 12 preceding months form the date of his termination and before termination neither any charge-sheet was issued, nor any enquiry was held or notice or compensation was paid to the petitioner. The provisions, as contained under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, were not complied with by respondent No. 2-Management and thus the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. He, accordingly, prays for setting aside of the Award dated 17.12.1992 passed by the Labour Court, Ambala. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in the light of the evidence produced by the Management before the Labour Court. He contends that the petitioner was appointed on a fixed term basis for a specified period of 89 days as Secretary in the Sipianwala Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd. Sipianwala. He joined on 02.02.1983 but on completion of his 89 days period, his services were terminated on 01.05.1983 on expiry of his tenure. The petitioner moved an application dated 02.05.1983 for extension of his tenure and he was given an extension of 89 days and he worked as such till 01.08.1983. Thereafter, the petitioner was again appointed for 30 days i.e. 05.08.1983 to 03.09.1983. After this, no further extension was granted and on each occasion, a fixed tenure was granted to the petitioner. During this span of service, the workman had not completed more than 240 days. Thereafter, the petitioner was authorized to work as Secretary in addition to his duties CWP No. 3990 of 1993 3 as Salesman till further orders w.e.f. 22.11.1983 to 24.09.1984 as the post of Secretary in the Sipianwala Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd. Sipianwala was lying vacant and the recovery season was in full swing. This order was passed by the Managing Director, The Ambala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, Ambala City-respondent No. 2 on 29.08.1983, which was conveyed to the petitioner, who was working as a Salesman in the Society, on 22.11.1983 (Annexure P-11). He continued as such till the order dated 03.09.1984 (Annexure P-12) was passed by the Managing Director, The Ambala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, Ambala City- respondent No. 2 withdrew the powers conferred on the petitioner to work as Secretary vide order dated 22.11.1983. This order was conveyed to the petitioner on 24.09.1984. He contends that the contention of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Secretary and he continued to work as such from 02.02.1983 to 24.09.1984 is totally misleading and not based on the evidence on record. His contention is that the learned Labour Court has taken all these facts into consideration and on consideration of the documentary evidence placed on record by the Management, a finding has been recorded that the workman has not completed more than 240 days of continuous service preceding the date of his termination i.e. 24.09.1984 and the period from 22.11.1983 to 24.09.1984 cannot be termed as an appointment of the petitioner as Secretary as he was only authorized to work as Secretary in addition to his duties as Salesman. He, on this basis, prays that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed as the Award passed by the Labour Court is fully justified and does not call for any interference by this Court. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. CWP No. 3990 of 1993 4 The petitioner was appointed as a Secretary under the Management of respondent No. 3 and he joined as such on 02.02.1983. He worked from 02.02.1983 to 01.05.1983 (89 days), 02.05.1983 to 01.08.1983 (89 days) and from 05.08.1983 to 03.09.1983 (30 days). Thereafter, no further extension was granted to him in service. His appointment was for a fixed tenure and on expiry of the said period, the service of the workman-petitioner was not extended leading to the termination of his service. The total period, for which the petitioner was appointed and he served as a Secretary of respondent No. 3, comes to 208 days. Thereafter, the petitioner, who was working as a Salesman in the Sipianwala Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd. Sipianwala- respondent No. 3, was authorized to work as Secretary by the Managing Director, The Ambala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, Ambala City- respondent No. 2 vide order dated 03.09.1983 in the Sipianwala Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd. Sipianwala-respondent No. 3 in addition to his normal duties as Salesman as the post of Secretary was lying vacant and recovery season was in full swing. He continued to perform the said duties w.e.f. 22.11.1983 when the said authorization to work as Secretary was withdrawn by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 03.09.1984 (Annexure P-12), which was conveyed to the petitioner on 24.09.1984. This period of service by the petitioner-workman cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be treated as service as a Secretary of the Society as it was only an authorization given to the petitioner to work as Secretary in addition to his duties as Salesman, which was his substantive post. The withdrawal of the additional authorization by the Managing Director, The Ambala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, Ambala City- respondent No. 2 to work as a Secretary cannot be termed as an order of CWP No. 3990 of 1993 5 termination of the service of the workman as Secretary. The claim of the workman, therefore, that he was appointed and he worked as Secretary with respondent No. 3 for the period beyond 03.09.1983 when his last fixed term appointment as Secretary came to an end, cannot be accepted to be correct. In any case, the workman has not completed more than 240 days in service in 12 preceding months from the date of his termination i.e. 03.09.1983 as Secretary as is apparent from the findings returned by the Labour Court, wherein it has been held that the petitioner had worked as Secretary for a total period of 208 days. There is no illegality or irregularity committed by the Labour Court while passing the impugned Award which would call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE February 22, 2010 pj