JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in respect of the order passed in I.D.(L) No.56 of 2015 dated 23.09.2019 issued by the Labour Court, quash the same and direct the respondent to reinstate him with continuity of service, regularize him in History and Geography, from the 15th of July, 2015 onwards, as per Article 4.5, Section II of the internal Rules and Regulations of the respondent’s institution, direct the respondent herein to pay full back wages.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed, challenging the Award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Puducherry dated 23.09.2019 passed in I.D.(L) No.56 of 2015, in by which, Labour Court dismissed the claim of the Petitioner for reinstatement.

2. It was the case of the Petitioner that he, who is a French Nationality, was appointed as a Teacher on contract basis in the Respondent school on 16.07.2012 for the French Syllabus of History Geography and Bio-Geology and his contract was extended for further period upto July, 2014. It was further case of the Petitioner that even after his unblemished services, he was not confirmed in service upto 14.07.2014. Subsequently, he was terminated by the Respondent by an order dated 26.03.2014 without following the provisions of Section 25(B)(2)(a)(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Aggrieved by the same, he raised a dispute, which, after completion of conciliation proceedings and on reference by the Government for adjudication, was numbered as I.D.(L) No.56 of 2015 by the Labour Court.

2.1. It was also the case of the Petitioner that the Labour Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the Petitioner, being appointed as a Teacher on contract basis, cannot seek any claim under the I.D.Act, 1947 and dismissed the claim of reinstatement. According to the Petitioner, the Labour Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective and also not applied the correct provisions of law. Hence, he prayed that the award of the Labour Court needs interference by this Court.

3. The Respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it has been inter alia stated as follows:

i) The Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on the facts of the case, as he is not a Workman of the Respondent within the ambit of Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act, 1947 and his dominant role as a Teacher was not in connection with any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational or clerical in nature and therefore, the Labour Court rightly refused to grant the relief of reinstatement;

ii) The Petitioner was drawing a sum of Rs.54,000/- as monthly salary and as per the definition of the I.D.Act, 1947, a person appointed in a Supervisory or Managerial capacity earning more than Rs.10,000/- cannot be construed as a Workman and the judgment relied upon by the Petitioner in Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate vs. Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate, reported in AIR 1958 SC 353, is not applicable to the present case, as the issue in that case is with regard to the community of interest and not on the real dispute between the parties;

iii) It was stated that since the Petitioner was appointed on fixed term contract, the Respondent is empowered either to renew it or to bring it to an end. Though he subsequently applied to the post of Biology Teacher, his name was not considered for selection for want of proper academic qualification. The Respondent clearly informed its inability to offer any permanent employment to the Petitioner even before the Conciliation Officer, pursuant to which, the Conciliation Proceeding was closed.

iv) It was further stated that the Labour Court has considered all the aspects and points raised by the Petitioner and dismissed the claim, by strongly relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sundarambal vs. Government of Goa, Daman and Diu and others, rep