The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the definition of 'retrenchment' under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act in determining the legality of the termination of services.

JUDGMENT : .

Gaurang Kanth, J.

1. The present petition emanates from the award dated 07.05.2003 (“impugned award”) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court I, Karkardooma courts, Delhi in I.D. No. 419/96 titled as “Sh.Yunus Khan and The Management of M/s Haryana Roadways”.

2. Vide the said impugned award, the learned Labour Court was pleased to hold that the services of Respondent/workman were terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the Petitioner/ Management in violation of Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“I.D. Act”). Accordingly, the learned Labour Court directed the Petitioner/Management to reinstate the Respondent/workman along with payment of back wages @ 25% of the last drawn wages and continuity in service.

3. The Petitioner/Management being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 07.05.2003, has preferred the present petition under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia praying for quashing of the impugned award.

FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF THE PRESENT WRIT

4. It is the case of the Respondent/workman that he was appointed by the Petitioner/Management as a Helper w.e.f. 03.05.1985. The Respondent/workman continued to dispense his duty till 30.09.1988 when his services were terminated without compliance of provisions of I.D. Act by the Petitioner/Management. The Respondent/workman has alleged that after his termination, the Petitioner appointed (i) Shri Naresh Kumar (ii) Shri Satbir Singh (iii) Shri Bal Kishan (iv) Shri Ashok Kumar (v) Shri Jai Singh without giving any chance to him for offering his services.

5. The Respondent/workman has further claimed that he served the management with a demand notice dated 21.11.1995, but in vain. Thereafter, conciliation proceedings were conducted to reach a settlement, however the same resulted in failure. After being satisfied regarding existence of an industrial dispute between the parties, the appropriate government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10(1)(c) and 12 (5) of the I.D Act, referred the present dispute to the learned Labour Court for adjudication with the following terms of reference:

“Whether the services of Shri Yunus Khan have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”

6. The Respondent/workman filed his statement of claim before the learned Labour Court wherein it was averred that his services were terminated verbally without giving the mandatory notice or notice pay and without paying the retrenchment compensation. Allegations were made regarding the violation of Section 25-F, Section 25-G, & Section 25-H of the I.D. Act. The Respondent/workman prayed for a direction to reinstate him with continuity of service along with payment of full back wages.

7. Consequently, the Petitioner/Management to counter the claims made by the Respondent filed their written statement taking preliminary objection that the claim is not maintainable as the Respondent/workman was a daily wager and had not completed mandatory period of 240 days in the current year. Also, that his services were terminated by virtue of expiry of the contract. Allegations levelled by the Respondent/workman that the Petitioner/Management retained juniors of the Respondent/workman in the service and consequent violation of the principle of ‘First come last go’ were denied. The Respondent/workman filed his rejoinder wherein he assailed the allegations made in the written statement.

8. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the issues in terms of reference were framed on 22.09.1997 by the learned Labour Court.

9. In support of the claim, the Respondent/workman examined himself as WW1 relying upon the documents Ex. WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/16. On the other hand, the Petitioner/Management examined Sh. Rajender Singh, clerk as MW1 who relied upon the documents Ex. MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/12 and Sh. Devkinandan, clerk as MW2

10. Learned Labour Cour