JUDGMENT - H.D. PATEL, J.:---This petition is directed against the interim order passed by the Labour Court, Amravati in U.L.P Case No. 54 of 1987 and other similar cases rejecting the application filed by each of the petitioners in their respective complaints for interim relief claimed under sub-section (2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (herein after referred to as "the Act No. I of 1972")

2. Each of the petitioners claiming themselves to be qualified for appointment to the post of Sanitary Inspectors, got themselves registered with the District Employment Exchange, Yavatmal. The first respondent submitted a requisition to the Employment Exchange for sponsoring eligible candidates for consideration of appointment to the posts of Sanitary Inspectors against the then existing vacancies and in pursuance whereof, after complying with the normal formalities pertaining to recruitment, appointed the petitioners to the posts of Sanitary Inspectors vide order dated 9-1-1986. The appointment was in the pay-scale of 335-680. The appointment letter, however, contained a stipulation that the appointment of the petitioners as Sanitary Inspectors will be for eleven months ending on 30-11-1967 or for such further period till select list of the candidates is received by the office. The first respondent by individual communication dated 30-11-86 informed the petitioners that their services stand terminated with effect from 30-11-1989 A.N.

3. Aggrieved by the order of termination, each of the petitioners filed a complaint before the Labour Court, Amravati seeking a declaration that the action resorted to by the first respondent was nothing but an unfair labour practice under various sub items including (f) of Item No. 1 of Schedule IV of the Act No. I of 1972. It was alleged in the complaint that the termination of services of all the petitioners was invalid and void since each of then had worked for more than 240 days and their services could not be dispensed with except in accordance with the procedure provided for retrenchment under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Other contentions were also raised but they are not relevant for my consideration at present. Each of the petitioners simultaneously moved an application under sub-section (2) of section 30 of Act No. I of 1972 seeking an interim relief for continuing the petitioners in service during the pendency of the complaints.

4. It is a settled law that the termination of services of a workman, who has worked for not less than 240 days within a period of twelve calendar months immediately proceeding the date of termination, without requisite payment of retrenchment compensation as envisaged by law, is invalid and void and this entitles a workman to claim the relief of reinstatement with back wages. Therefore, a common defence was raised in all the cases by the first respondent alleging that the contract of employment was only for a specific period and the termination of services with the expiry of the term stipulated could not be deemed to be retrenchment and the protection claimed by the petitioners was not available to them under the amended Clause (oo) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Other defences were also raised with which this Court is not presently concerned.

5. The learned Labour Court after hearing the parties on the point of interim relief passed the order impugned rejecting the prayer of each of the petitioners to continue them in service. It appears that the Labour Court was of the opinion that under the amended definition of retrenchment, the petitioners cannot be said to have been retrenched and hence section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act was not attracted. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the order finally deciding the point involved have filed this petition.

6. What is necessary to decide is the scope and ambit of the amended Sub Clause (bb) of Clause (oo) of section 2 o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document