Honble SINHA, J.–Leave granted.

(2). The respondent herein was appointed initially for a period of 89 days in the post of Junior Technician (Electronics) on an ad hoe basis on or about 31.10.1990. In terms of an offer of appointment made to her, she was appointed therein. The post was purely temporary and her services were liable to be terminated without assigning any reason or notice. It was categorically stated that the respondent shall have no claim for regular appointment having worked with the appellant-Corporation on ad hoe basis. Her services were extended from time to time. In each of the offer of appointment, indisputably, similar terms and Conditions were laid down. The details of such appointments are as under :

"Sl.No. Period Working days

1. 13.2.91 to 12.5.91 89

2. 14.5.91 to 10.8.91 89

3. 13.8.91 to 9.11.91 89

4. 11.11.91 to 7.2.92 89"

(3). It is not in dispute that she remained absent for 19 days during the period 20.01.1992 and 7.02.1992 as also for a period of 11 days during the period 17.3.1992 to 27.3.1992. Her services were terminated on 7.8.1992. She raised an industrial dispute, whereupon the State of Punjab in exercise of its power under Section 10(1)(c) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the said dispute for adjudication of the Labour Court. In the meanwhile, the appellant-Corporation has issued an advertisement for filling up some posts on regular basis including the said post of Junior Technician. The respondent, however, did not apply pursuant, to the said advertisement.

(4). Before the Labour Court, the appellant herein has raised a plea that the appointment of the respondent being ad hoc in nature and furthermore on a contract basis as envisaged under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, her services were liable to be terminated in terms thereof. By reason of the impugned Award dated 21.5.2003, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the respondent with back wages on the premise that she completed 240 days of work during period of twelve months immediately preceding the date of termination of her services and in view of the fact that the conditions laid down under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act had not been complied with by the Appellant.

(5). The Appellant-Corporation herein, being aggrieved by the said Award, filed a Writ Petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which was numbered as W.P. (C) No. 2464 of 2004. By reason of the impugned judgment, the said Writ Petition has been dismissed.

(6). Mr. Arvind Nayyar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that having regard to the fact that the services of the respondent could not have been directed to be regularized in the light of the judgments of this Court and furthermore in view of the fact that her appointment had been for a fixed period of 89 days, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

(7). Mr. Ranvir Singh Yadav learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, urged that the respondent having completed 240 days of service within a period of twelve months preceding the date of her termination and in view of the fact that no compensation had been paid as provided in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court and consequently the High Court has rightly directed her reinstatement with full back wages.

(8). Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act reads as under:

"termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminates under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein."

(9). The respondent was appointed from time to time. Her services used to be terminated on the expiry of 89 days on regular basis. However, it is noticed that she used to be appointed after a gap of one or two days upon completion of each term. Such an action on the part of the Appellant cannot be said to be bona fide. Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document