The practice of retrenching a workman close to his attaining a year's continuous service in order to frustrate his attaining rights under Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is an unfair labour practice.

M.M.PUNCHHI, J.

1. To the ever expanding list of unfair labour practices, well known to Industrial Law, does the practice of retrenching a workman, close to his attaining a years continuous service, in order to forestall his attaining rights under Chap. V-A, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, deserve addition by judicial recognition, is the tricky question which stands surfaced in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Therein a challenge has been made to an award of the Labour Court dated 4-4-1983 published in the Punjab Government Gazette on 8-7-1983. Annexure P. 6 to the petition.

2. We shall take note of the facts as observed bv the Labour Court. It had before it seven references in which industrial disputes raised by respondents 2 to 8 herein were individually referred by the Punjab Government for adjudication. By means of the impugned award, they were disposed of together. The services of the respondents-workmen were terminated on 28-5-1979 at a time when they had put in 230 days of service with the petitioner, who is a Co-operative Bank, registered as a Society under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The terminal action was similar to all workmen. There were no departmental inquiries or charge-sheet to determine the fault or misconduct, if any, of the workmen. They were not given any retrenchment compensation. The plea of the petitioner-Bank was that the services of the workmen were for a specified period up till 28-5-1979, and their services were purely temporary. The terminations were sought to be justified by the petitioner before the Labour Court as being strictly in accordance with the instructions and orders of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, as the need to employ them was temporary in nature, as spelled out by the Registrar, and the termination of services too was under his direction, to forestall any workman completing more than 230 days of service. It was otherwise pleaded before the Labour Court that there were notional breaks in the service of the workmen, and they having completed: just 230 days of service cumulatively, the action of the management was above- board. Thus, on the pleadings of the parties, the following two issues were framed by the Labour Court;

(1) Whether the termination of services of Joginder Singh.........is justified and in order ?

(2) If not, to what relief?

3. The parties led their evidence. The Labour Court then observed as follows :

"Mr. M. R. Mittal the authorised representative, failed to justify the termination of the workmen concerned and rightly so because the workmen were appointed for specific period from 5-10-1978 to 31-12-1978 and after one days break they were reappointed from 2-1- 1979 for 89 days. This is an unfair labour practice and they did not want con-, tinuity of service beyond 31-12-1978. The cross-examination of the witness of the management namely Shri Ranjit Singh goes to show that the work of all the workmen was satisfactory and after their termination they were not reemployed and since they had already worked, they had prior right of re-employment on the same job, when others were recruited in their place.

Therefore, there is nothing on the record to show that their services were terminated in accordance with law. So I find that the termination of services of these workmen was neither justified nor in order and decide this issue in favour of the workmen and against the respondent/ management.

Issue No. 2.

Since the termination of services of the workmen concerned was held illegal. I find that the workmen concerned are entitled to reinstatement with full back wages as no evidence has been produced by the respondent that they were gainfully employed and I direct the respondent to take these workmen on duty when this award becomes enforceable."

4. When this petition came up for hearing before the Motion Bench at the instance of the management, Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. V/s. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha. AIR 1930 SC 1896, was