IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

226 Decided on :30.04.2025 PREM NARAYAN . .Petitioner VERSUS PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL LUDHIANA &

ANR.

. . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI PRESENT: Mr. Ravi Gakhar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vivek Dahiya, Advocate for Dr. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1.. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned award dated 05.04.2016 (Annexure P-3), by which, the claim of the petitioner that his services were terminated by the respondents-department by violating the provisions of the Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as ‘The 1947 Act’) has not been accepted by the labour Court and no retrenchment compensation was given to the petitioner, and rather, the case of the petitioner has been treated by the labour Court under Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the 1947 Act, which findings of the labour Court is incorrect in the facts and circumstances of present case.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that provisions of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the 1947 Act can only be made applicable keeping in view the nature of the appointment of an employee hence, the nature of appointment of an employee has to be discussed to ascertain as to whether, the employee was appointed for a limited period or for continuous period so as to ensure the same amounts to retrenchment or not.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents argues that once, it is a conceded fact that the petitioner was given specific appointment upto a particular date and the said appointment came to an end due to non-extension of the contract further, hence, the claim of the petitioner is covered under Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the 1947 Act and therefore, the labour Court has rightly held that compensation for retrenchment was not to be paid to the petitioner and there was no violation of the provisions of 1947 Act.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance.

5. It may be noticed that, the findings recorded in paragraph No. 7 of the impugned award wherein, the evidence brought on record has been discussed with regard to the appointment of the petitioner by the respondents-department and the terms and conditions of the appointment were also mentioned therein. A bare perusal of the findings recorded therein would show that the petitioner was appointed for a particular period and his services came to end on 31.03.2005 due to non renewal of his contract any further. Said fact has gone unrebutted. That being so, the issue which needs to be adjudicated is whether the same will amount to retrenchment or will be covered under Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the 1947 Act.

6. For better understanding, the Section 25-F the Act is reproduced as under-

“Section 25F-Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen [25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.--No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until--

(a) the workman has been given one months notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay 3[for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 4[or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].”

7. Further the Section 2 (oo) defines the retrenchment and Section 2(oo) (bb) defines where the termination of the services of an employee will not amount to retrenchment. For better understanding, the Sect