The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, must be followed before terminating the services of workmen, and in cases of unfair labour practice, reinstatement may not be feasible, leading to the award of compensation.

Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J.

This order shall dispose of 8 writ petitions, bearing C.W.P. Nos. 22369 of 2011, 13307, 13346, 13373, 16595, 16677, 16756 & 16788 of 2012, involving common questions of law and facts and the award dated 25.08.2011 (Annexure P6) is also common. However, to dictate orders, facts have been taken from CWP No. 22369 of 2011 titled Natha Singh v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurdaspur & others. Vide the award dated 25.08.2011, the Labour Court, Gurdaspur answered the references against the workmen and in favour of the respondents under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act'). The plea of the Municipal Council that the workmen were covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) and it was a contractual appointment, was accepted and they were held not entitled to the relief of reinstatement.

2. A perusal of the record would go on to show that the workman pleaded that he was employed on 01.09.1993 as a Keyman (controlling the flow of water) which was regular and perennial nature of and he was drawing salary of Rs. 2500/- per month and the remained in employment till 31.03.2002. The respondent-Municipal Council, Pathankot had resorted to unfair labour practice and engaged him on contract basis. There was no break in his service and inspite of a policy of regularisation dated 23.01.2001, which provided that persons having 3 years of service were entitled to be regularised, his services were terminated without issuing any notice, show-cause notice, enquiry or without making the payment of retrenchment compensation and this act of respondent No. 3 amounted to unfair labour practice and in violation of the terms of Section 25-F of the Act and that new appointments were also made through backdoor entry and juniors were also working and accordingly, violation of Sections 25-G & 25-H of the Act were also alleged. It was further submitted that the workman was unemployed.

3. The claim was resisted by taking the plea that the case of the workman was covered by Clause 2(oo)(bb) of the Act and that he was a contractual employee for a specific job and specific period and the wages were fixed by the Local Government, Punjab. No proper selection of the workman had been made and there existed no such post of permanent vacancy and no interview was held nor any selection was made. The workman was engaged on contractual basis on stop gap arrangement due to exigency of work. The policy dated 23.01.2001 was not applicable upon the concerned workman whose contract expired on 31.03.2002. Reliance was placed upon letter dated 24.08.2001 by the Deputy Director, whereby it had been clarified that the employees engaged on contractual basis cannot be considered for regularisation. It was pleaded that there was no junior retained nor any person appointed in his place.

4. In the replication filed by the workman, the plea taken was that the act of the respondents was contrary to spirit of law of industrial jurisprudence to cheat the law by camouflage or fraud and amounted to unfair labour practice and there was victimization and the shelter of Section 2(oo)(bb) could not be taken. It was submitted that the job was perennial in nature and did not cease to exist and because of non-compliance of selection process due to the fault of respondent No. 2, the petitioner's rights had been affected and the workman could continue working in future and therefore, there was violation of Section 25-F of the Act.

5. In the evidence submitted by the workman by way of affidavit, he took the plea that he was in continuous employment from 01.09.1993 to 31.03.2002 and the job continued and the workman was appointed as per the rules after taking sanction and by virtue of resolution passed by the Municipal Council, Pathankot. The designation of the Keyman was not covered under Section 39 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 as it was not in the cadre provided in Appendix 'A' to 'D'. No permission was required fro