The court upheld the illegal termination of the respondents/workmen and their entitlement to reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court also emphasized the recent trend of awarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement in cases of illegal termination.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. -

FACTS

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned Award dated 13.05.2014 in LIR/D No.1009/2011 titled Sh. Lokesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University, whereby, the learned Labour Court, inter alia, held the termination to be illegal and ordered that the respondents/workmen are entitled to reinstatement in service from the date of their termination, but on daily wage basis as they were at the time of their termination, with full back wages and other consequential benefits.

2. The facts in brief are that the respondents/workmen had filed statement of claims against the petitioner/management for a direction to the petitioner/management to reinstate them back in service with full back wages and continuity in service and other consequential benefits. The respondents/workmen had alleged that they had joined the petitioner/management as Peon-cum-Cleaner with effect from 23.05.2008 in the Examination Division at Kashmere Gate, Delhi and had a clean service record. It was alleged that they were initially taken into the job on a sanction of 89 days and were given fresh sanction after showing one day break on papers though they remained physically in service continuously. The services of the respondents/workmen were terminated on 31.10.2010 without assigning any reason. The petitioner/management had neither issued a memo nor a chargesheet to them before terminating their services. The respondents/workmen initially sent a demand notice dated 11.02.2011 to the petitioner/management which remained unresponded. The respondents/workmen pleaded that they remained unemployed since the date of their termination and that they did not get any job despite best efforts.

3. The petitioner/management contested the claim of the respondents/workmen on the ground that the respondents/workmen were appointed only for a fixed period subject to the condition that their job was purely temporary and they shall have no right to continue after the stipulated time and both the workmen agreed to the same. The petitioner/management pleaded that the respondents/workmen were daily wagers and were appointed on contract basis.

4. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the learned Labour Court framed the following issues:-

'1. Whether the workmen had performed continuous duty with the management from 23.5.2008 to 31.10.2008?OPW

2. Whether the workmen were engaged by the management on daily wages basis and they had performed duty with a break of two days after every 89 days, if so to what effect? OPW

3. Whether services of the workmen have been illegally terminated by the management or whether the case of the workmen is covered u/s 2 (oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

Onus on parties

4. Relief'

5. The respondents/workmen examined themselves as WW1 and WW2. On behalf of petitioner/management, Sh. Kapil Sharma - Section Officer was examined as MW1. Learned Labour Court on issue Nos.1 and 2 inter alia held that the respondents/workmen had continuously worked with the petitioner/management from 23.05.2008 to 31.10.2010 without any actual break of 2 days though, on papers, they were shown to have been given a break of 2 days after every 89 days and separate work orders were issued to them after every 89 days. It was inter alia held that this practice of issuing work orders for 89 days would clearly amount to unfair labour practice when the respondents/workmen had been working continuously till the date of their actual termination which was done by the management only with the intent to wriggle out of the rigors of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'I.D. Act, 1947'). It was further inter alia held that the work for which the respondents/workmen were engaged cannot be said to be a work of temporary nature as examinations were held on a continuous basis every year and as such the job for which the respondents/workmen were appointed was of a perennial nature. Learned Labour