Repeated monthly appointments for a continuous period of three years amounted to unfair labour practice, violating Section 25T of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Vipin Sanghi, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the award dated 18.12.2006 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court –II (CGIT hereinafter) in ID no 117/2004 wherein the reference mentioned herein below was answered in favor of the respondent workman by directing reinstatement of the respondent with 25% back wages. The reference made by the Central Government reads as follows:

“Whether the action of the management of Officer-In-Charge, Defence Standardization Cell, Raksha Manak Bhawan, Defence Camping Ground, New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri Mukesh Kumar, Ex. Safai Karamchari w.e.f. 12.05.2003 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date.”

2. It was the case of the respondent workman before the CGIT that he was engaged as a sweeper on 09.08.2000 with the petitioner management and that his appointment was through the Employment Exchange, Kibri Place Cantt., New Delhi. It was the respondent’s case that the petitioner management was not providing him the benefits to which he was entitled under the law, and his constant demand for the same annoyed the petitioner who terminated his services on 19.05.2003 in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( Act for short). It was his claim that his juniors were continued in employment by the petitioner, and fresh hands were employed subsequent to his termination, which was done without conducting an inquiry or issuing a charge sheet. He raised the aforesaid industrial dispute as a consequence of his termination, submitting that the petitioner was guilty of violating Section 25 F,25T and 25U of the Act. He alleged that the petitioner had adopted unfair labour practice.

3. The petitioner management contested the aforesaid claim before the CGIT by contending that the respondent had been employed, along with three others sponsored by the employment exchange, as a casual worker pursuant to an agreement between him and the petitioner management. It was their case that the respondent was given periodical appointments between August 2000- May 2003. Under the terms and conditions he could be terminated at anytime if his services were not upto the mark. The management contended that the services of the respondent were unsatisfactory and his services were terminated on one week notice issued to him verbally. It was also the petitioner’s case that the holdings of an inquiry or issuance of a charge sheet was not a prerequisite, as the respondent was a casual workman and not a permanent worker.

4. It may be noticed at this stage itself that the contract between the parties titled as an “Agreement” – which was renewed every month, labelled the respondent as a “Contractor”- as if, it was for the respondent to arrange to get the conservancy work done and it was not a case of his personal employment. For example, the agreement for August, 2002, inter-alia, recited:

“This AGREEMENT made at New Delhi for the month of August, 2002 on this day between Shri Mukesh Kumar here in after referred to as ‘The first Party’ (Which expression shall unless repugnant to the context or meaning thereof be deemed to include its partners successor and assigness) and the OIC Defence Standardisation Cell, Defence Camping Ground, Badarpur, New Delhi-44, herein after referred to as the ‘Second Party’ (Which expression shall unless repugnant to the context or meaning thereof be deemed to include its successors or assignees)”

WHEREAS THE FIRST PARTY is doing the business of providing conservancy Service through its own personnel, and where as Services as desired by the second party in their premises at Raksha Manak Bhawan, Defence Camping Ground, Badarpur, New Delhi-44.

1. That the First Party shall provide Conservancy Services for the cleaning of the office premises reception office of the Second Party namely from the Adm. Bloc