JUDGMENT

Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - CM-266-LPA-2022

Application for condoning the delay of 1311 days in re-filing the appeal is allowed, in view of the averments made in the application, duly supported by affidavit. Delay of 1311 days in re-filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

CM stands disposed of.

LPA-1203-2021 (O&M)

Consideration in the present appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 09.11.2017 passed in CWP-16769-2002 titled State of Haryana v. Sukhbir Singh & another wherein the writ petition filed by the State was allowed and the Labour Court award dated 25.02.2002 (Annexure P-6) which was in favour of the workman to the extent that reinstatement had been directed with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of the demand notice was set aside.

2. The learned Single Judge was of the view that in view of the provisions of Section 2 (oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act') and while placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation v. Salimbhai Umarbhai Mansuri , 2013 (14) SCC 456 it could not be said to be an act of retrenchment and it was only on completion of the tenure services had been dispensed with and there was no violation of the provisions of Sections 2 5G & 25H of the Act.

3. The contention that the State had accepted the awards and implemented them in similar circumstances, were held to be on illegalities which could not be perpetuated.

4. In our considered opinion, the cursory setting aside of the award was not justified in the facts and circumstances as the factual matrix was not kept in mind while applying the judgment of the Apex Court which escaped the notice of the learned Single Judge. The claim was on the basis of the appointment made on contract basis on 01.03.1993 for a period of 89 days and that it had been extended time and again and he had worked till 19.11.1998 and eventually raised the industrial dispute by a demand notice dated 16.03.1999. Apparently the final letter of appointment was dated 25.09.1998 (Annexure P-1) wherein the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Jhajjar had employed him as a Taxation Peon in the office of Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Jhajjar for a period of 89 days from 14.09.1998. Resultantly, his appointment was upto 13.12.1998 and he was to be paid DC rates as per the contractual fee. The contract could be terminated in case his work and conduct was found to be unsatisfactory and it was in such circumstances, the finding which has been recorded that the termination was per the terms of appointment was against the record.

5. It is to be noticed that as per the demand notice itself the claim that he had been appointed in the said post in a different district at Gurugram from 01.02.1993 to 31.12.1993 and thereafter, accommodated at Rohtak and had continued till 21.09.1994 and was adjusted at District Jhajjar apparently on the creation of the same from 31.09.1996 and resultantly, retrenched on 19.11.1998 and therefore, had completed 240 days of service. Similar was the claim statement made and in the written statement it was admitted that he had worked from 01.03.1993 and continued as claimed and had been transferred to Jhajjar on 19.12.1997 for the period from 01.12.1997 to 27.02.1998 and from 16.06.1998 to 12.09.1998 and from 14.09.1998 to 19.11.1998. The finding recorded by the Labour Court while placing reliance upon Ext.M-3 the detail of the working days prepared was that he had worked from 01.12.1997 up to 19.11.1998 for a period of 245 days. There was neither any such defence by the State also that