Termination of contractual employment does not equate to retrenchment under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, limiting the right to claim reinstatement.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.

An Award dated 01.10.2019 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati, in Reference Case No. 02 of 2013 is the subject matter of challenge in this petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By the aforesaid Award, the concerned Workman, respondent no.3 has been directed to be reinstated and the Management is also directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in lieu of the back wages. The Management is the petitioner, which has questioned the legality and validity of the said Award.

2. As per facts projected, the respondent no. 3-Workman was initially appointed in September 1998 in the establishment of the Management on contractual basis for different periods and the 1st period was from 06.10.1998 to 05.01.1999. The last appointment was made vide order dated 08.07.2011 for a period upto 31.12.2011. The Management has highlighted that the appointment orders were contractual in nature and there was specific clause that no right would be accrued in favour of the workman. Further clauses were there, that the contract would be rescinded automatically and the same would not confer any right. It is also clarified that the post in which the petitioner was engaged was not a regular post and also a non-sanctioned post. Upon expiry of the period of the last contractual term on 31.12.2011 the engagement was not continued and accordingly, the workman had raised a dispute and a Reference was made in the following terms: Reference

"Whether the action of the management of Agricultural & Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA). under M/o Commerce & Indus-try in terminating the service of Sh. Binod Chandra Barman w.e.f. 01.01.2012 with-out notice and without any terminate benefits as well as refusal to reinstate him on completion of 13 yrs into service is proper and justifies? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?"

3. The learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) after hearing the parties has passed the impugned Award dated 01.10.2019 directing reinstatement of the workman and the payment of a lump sum in lieu of back wages. It is this Award which is the subject matter of challenge as indicated above.

4. I have heard Shri A. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has appeared online. I have also heard Shri L. C. Dey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.

5. Shri Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned Award has made observations which are not only incorrect, but also perverse. He has highlighted that in paragraph 9 of the impugned Award, there is a finding of a clear employer- employee relationship between the workman and the management, which is not substantiated by records. He has also highlighted the observations made by the learned Tribunal that though, the appointment was contractual and periodic, by sheer length of his continuity, he can be held to be permanent in nature. It is submitted that the Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, deals with “retrenchment”. However, sub Section (bb) clarifies that the same does not include termination as a result of non-renewal of contracts. He has submitted that the present discontinuation removal cannot be equated with retrenchment. He has submitted that though there was a clause in the appointment that the same could be terminated without any notice. In the instant case, the termination was not during the pendency of the contract and therefore, the question of issuing notice would not arise. He submits that the termination was after completion of the period of the contract and as there was no furth