Contractual employees are not entitled to reinstatement under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

ORDER

This petition is filed being aggrieved of the award dated 03.05.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the CGIT/Labour Court, Jabalpur in Case No.CGIT/LC/R/64/2006 whereby the CGIT/Labour Court rejected the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement in the Office of the Respondent - District Opium Officer, Central Bureau of Narcotics, Mandsaur on the ground that the petitioner was a contractual employee and therefore, in terms of the provision contained in Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is applicable and it is not a case of retrenchment of an employee but that of non- (VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE renewal of contract.

Ms. Shobha Menon, learned Senior Advocate submits that this finding is perverse and needs to be set aside.

Shri Yadav, supports the impugned award and submits that no indulgence is called for.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is true that the respondent proceeded ex parte before the CGIT. It is also true that it had not filed any reply to the statement of claim nor adduced any evidence. But it is equally true that the claimant/workman had himself filed Exhibit W-3 which is a certificate issued by the District Opium Officer wherein it is certified that the petitioner was working for last one year on contract basis and was engaged in work of gardening and farras. Thereafter Annexure P-7 is the document issued by the respondents mentioning therein that the petitioner along with other employees was working under the M/s Nobel Securities Services, Indore with whom there was an agreement of hiring of man power.

Thus, these two documents make it amply clear that the petitioner was a contractual employee and not an employee working on daily wages under employment of respondent No.1 directly. Therefore, this Court has no iota of doubt that when provision 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act is taken into consideration, the petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement.

There is no illegality in the impugned award calling for interference. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

ks