The judgment emphasizes the importance of compliance with the Industrial Disputes Act in cases of termination, highlighting the distinction between different types of appointments and the need for evidence in matters of compensation.

JUDGMENT

Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral) - The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the award dated 03.01.2002 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh (Annexure P-20); whereby the reference has been answered against the petitioner; and for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.1 & 2 to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages; along with certain other prayers.

2. The facts, as pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner workman asserted that he was employed by the respondent-employer as work-charge T. Mate on 17.10.1984 and his service was terminated on 25.07.1985. At the time of termination of service the petitioner was not offered any retrenchment compensation. Hence, the termination of service of the petitioner was in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the I.D. Act). The petitioner raised a demand notice. However, the respondents did not accept the demand. The conciliation proceedings between the parties having failed, the appropriate Government made a reference to the Labour Court. However, the Labour Court has answered the reference against the petitioner-workman. Hence, the present petition.

3. Carrying forward the arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Labour Court has gone wrong in law in answering the reference against the petitioner on the ground that the termination of service of the petitioner was covered within the scope of provisions contained in Section 2(oo)(BB) of the I.D. Act. The petitioner was never appointed on contract basis, rather, he was working in work-charge establishment and was appointed at new 66KV Sub- Station, Sector 52, Chandigarh. Mere fact that the terms of appointment, enumerated by the respondent-management, that the service of the petitioner could be terminated at any point of time, without even notice, is not sufficient to bypass the provisions of the I.D. Act. The counsel has further submitted that it is not even in dispute that the petitioner had completed service of 240 days in preceding twelve calendar months immediately before the date of his termination. Hence, the action of the respondents is totally illegal. The award deserves to be set aside. The petitioner deserves to be reinstated in to the service with full back wages.

4. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent-employer has submitted that the Labour Court has rightly decided the reference against the petitioner by treating the same to be covered by provision of 2(oo)(BB) of the I.D. Act. The appointment of the petitioner was contractual in nature and meant for a specific project. Since the work, for which the petitioner was engaged, was over, therefore, the petitioner was given notice for termination of his service. Even the retrenchment compensation was offered to him. However, he refused to accept the same. Therefore, no fault could be found with the action of the respondent-employer. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Having heard the counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this court finds substance in the argument raised by counsel for the petitioner. It is not even in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on 'work-charge' basis and in work-charge establishment and was posted at Capacitor Bank at Dhulkot. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner was not on 'contract' basis. Not only that the letter of appointment does not even talk of any contract of appointment, as such. Although, the terms of appointment stipulated that the service of the petitioner could be dispensed with at any point of time, particularly on completion of the work, however, that does not absolve the respondent- employer from compliance with the statutory provisions as contained in Section 25 of the I.D. Act. As an employer the respondent always had a right to dispense wit