Termination of service of a part-time workman who has worked for 240 days in a period of twelve months preceding the date of termination of service will ordinarily be decided as void if it is found that the employer has violated the provisions of Section 25-F(a) and (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

G.S.Singhvi, J.

1. This is a petition to quash the award dated 22.5.1997 passed by the Labour Court, Bathinda in reference No. 119 of 1994.

2. The facts necessary for deciding this petition are that the petitioner was employed as a Class-IV employee under the respondent No. 3 w.e.f. 8.9.1992. She raised an industrial dispute challenging the termination of her services w.e.f. 19.8.1993 on the ground of violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act) and unfair labour practice as well as the violation of the principles of natural justice. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 contested her claim by stating that the petitioner was engaged as a part-time employee and her service stood terminated on completion of the period of employment. They also contended that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable to her case. By its award dated 17.1.1996, the labour Court held that the provisions of the Act are not attracted because the Hospitals and dispensaries do not come within the ambit of industry as defined Under Section 2(j). It also held that the termination of the service of the workmen is covered by Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. That award was set aside by the High Court in C.W.P. No. 4201 of 1996. Vide its order dated 28.8.1996, the High Court reversed the finding of the Labour Court that a part-time employee does not fall within the definition of workman. At the same time it remanded the case to the labour Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. By the impugned award the labour Court has again refused to give relief to the petitioner by holding that the termination of her service is covered by the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act.

3. At the very outset, we must mention that the finding recorded by the labour Court in its award dated 17.1.1996 that the hospitals and dispensaries do not come within the ambit of term industry is clearly perverse and is based on total non-application of mind by the learned Presiding Officer. It is indeed unfortunate that the learned Presiding Officer has ignored the declaration of law made by a seven Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and Ors., A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 548, while recording the finding that hospitals and dispensaries do not come within the definition of industry. We have no hesitation in recording our disapproval of the casual manner in which the learned Presiding Officer recorded finding on that issue. Being a court subordinate to the High Court under Article 227 and to the Supreme Court under Article 136, the Labour Court was bound to follow law declared by the Apex Court holding that hospitals etc. fall within the definition of industry. We hope that the learned officers who preside over the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals will be more careful in future while adjudicating disputes between the workmen and the employers refrain from passing lopsided awards ignoring the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the High Courts.

4. On the issue is applicability of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act in the case of a part time workman, the judgment of the Division Bench in C.W.P. No. 4201 of 1996, Simla Devi v. Presiding Officer, (supra) is binding on the parties. As such the plea set up by the respondents that the provisions of the Act are not applicable/are not attracted in the case of the petitioner deserves to be rejected. Moreover, we find that this plea of the respondents is wholly untenable because in the written statement filed before the Labour Court, the respondents had unequivocally averred that the petitioner was engaged on monthly salary. For the first three months she was paid Rs.476A per month. For the remaining period she was paid @ Rs,502/- per month. On the issue of total period of service, we find that the petitioner had in fact worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months preceding the date of termination of her services. Th