The main legal point established in the judgment is that the repeated appointment letters of 89 days to deny the workman the benefit of a regular employee amounted to unfair labour practice, and the termination of his services was illegal.

G.S. Sandhawalia, J.

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 07.12.2009 (Annexure P11) vide which the respondent No. 2-workman was reinstated with continuity in service and awarded 30% back wages. The claim before the Labour Court was that the petitioner had been appointed in the Mewat Model School, Tehsil Punhana, District Gurgaon on 20.08.2001 on the post of Driver and was drawing a salary of Rs. 2,735/- and his services were terminated on 21.11.2003 without payment of retrenchment compensation and other dues, in accordance with law. Accordingly, claim was made for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service on the ground that the service record of the workman was unblemished and neither any charge sheet was issued nor any domestic enquiry was conducted and no opportunity of hearing was given to the workman. It was pleaded that the issuance of appointment letter for 89 days, one after the other, was unfair labour practice on the part of the Management and there was no break in service.

2. In the written statement, filed by the petitioners-Management, it was Sailesh ranjan pleaded that the workman misbehaved with the students, their parents and other staff members of co-educational school. He also indulged in having liquor during the duty period and there was a complaint by the students and parents and staff members. His services were not extended as the workman was indulging in wrongful acts and could not be rewarded for his wrong doings, particularly in a co-educational institution. Accordingly, it was submitted that the services of the workman were terminated without any extension of service, as per terms of the appointment letter, which was the basis of the service. Reliance was placed upon the appointment letter containing the terms and conditions which contained the stipulation that the contractual assignment could be terminated at any time, without giving prior notice. Due to the nature of his appointment, there was no issue of probe or regular enquiry and due to the allegations against him, such persons could not be allowed to remain in co-educational school any more. The complaints received against his work and conduct and his own admission were enclosed to justify the non-extension of his contract. It is further averred that there was no continuity in service and there were breaks in service after a spell of every 89 days and it was denied that it was an unfair labour practice.

3. The Labour Court, after taking into account the statements of the workman and the Management witness, Ms. Mercy Jitus and the documents of the Management, Exhibits M2 to M7, came to the conclusion that the workman had been appointed as Driver with the petitioners-Management w.e.f. 20.08.2001, 28.01.2002 and lastly, on 10.12.2003, on 89 days basis and there were notional breaks and therefore, he had acquired status of a regular employee. Reliance was placed upon two Division Bench judgments of this Court in the case of Bhikku Ram v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak 1998 (1) RSJ 703 and Director, Health and Family Welfare and Others Vs. Baljinder Singh and Another, (2006) 2 LLJ 970 and the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in The Chief Soil Conservator Punjab and Others Vs. Gurmail Singh, (2009) 15 SCC 103 to hold that termination of the workman, working intermittently with the Management, would amount to illegal retrenchment. Accordingly, the benefit of reinstatement was given along with continuity of service and back wages to the extent of 30% on the basis of the last drawn salary vide the impugned award dated 07.12.2009.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that as per the last appointment letter dated 30.09.2003, issued to the respondents, which was placed before the Labour Court as Exhibit M2 and copy of which is attached as Annexure P4, the appointment of the respondent-workman was on 89 days from 25.08.2003 to 21.1.2003, on a consolid