JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - The present set of 6 appeals arise out of common order dated 18.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby 9 writ petitions, filed by the Management were disposed of by modifying the award dated 25.02.2015 (Annexure P-1) wherein 50% back-wages had been granted from the date of filing of the claim statement.

2. The reasoning given by the learned Single Judge was that the service of the workman as Assistant Linesman was from 15.10.2009 till 30.10.2011 while dealing with the case of CWP-7402-2016. The termination of the services was without complying with the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act') without any notice or payment and juniors were still retained and therefore, provisions of Section 25 -G & 25-H of the Act were violated. The argument raised that it was termination on the expiry of the contract period was repelled on the ground that no material was placed before the Tribunal to record such a finding as there was no illegality in the award and therefore, the same cannot be upset on that account as it was not an appellate proceedings. Resultantly, while placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Defence Research Education Society & another v. Neeta Tuteja , 2015 (1) SCT 18 , the learned Single Judge directed that reinstatement should be done without back-wages but with continuity of service and thus, the award was modified accordingly.

3. A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that the claim of the workman before the Labour Court in the case of Gulshan Kumar-appellant was that he has worked as ALM from 08.05.2010 till 30.09.2011 and on 01.10.2011, his services had been terminated and therefore, the provisions of Section 25 -F, 25-G & 25-H of the Act were invoked. The stock defence taken by the employer was that they were engaged on the basis of service agreement under outsourcing policy on DC rates and it was for a fixed period which had automatically expired when the regular selected candidate was employed. The relationship of employer and employee was also denied and that he had not completed 240 days. The officer from the office of the SDO (Operations) of the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam had appeared and produced the above rules and similarly the Executive Engineer had appeared as Management witness and placed on record the service agreement between the workman and Management as Ex.M-1 which showed that the working period was as claimed.

4. Accordingly, by noticing that the period of service was not to exceed 6 months and there was no clause for renewal however since they had continued in service and they were not governed by the service agreement any more, a finding was accordingly recorded that the workman worked for 362 days in 12 months preceding the date of his termination with break of 3 days. Therefore, it would be continuous period under Section 25 -B-(2) of the Act and dispensing of service was without any notice or payment of retrenchment compensation and there was violation of the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act and reinstatement was thus ordered on 26.02.2015 with 50% back wages. It is not disputed that the appellants are still continuing in service of the respondents.

5. In such circumstances, keeping in view the nature of their appointment, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was well justified while coming to the conclusion that back-wages are not liable to be granted as it was only an appointment under outsourcing contract policy on DC rate basis for the exigencies of the proper maintenance of the utility service. The learned Single Judge has duly protected the interest of the workmen