Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 806 (PNJ)

Kiran Goswami v. Labour Court, Ambala

2013-07-02

AJAY TEWARI

body2013
JUDGMENT : Ajay Tewari, J. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the award rejecting her claim. The admitted facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk on 12.01.1987 on daily wages. Undisputedly her contract was renewed from time to time and she continued to work till 31.12.1987. Her contract not having been renewed thereafter she raised the instant dispute. 2. In reply the plea taken was twofold; firstly, that her case was covered by Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and secondly, she had been appointed to assist an officer who had been sent on deputation and on the return of the deputationist her services being no longer required there was no infirmity in the action of the respondents in not renewing her appointment. In this view of the matter it was urged that Section 25(F) of the Act was not applicable. The labour Court agreed with the contention of respondent No. 2 and held that there was no unfair labour practice and that the case was covered by Section 2(oo)(bb) and not by Section 25(F) of the Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the very basis of the claim of respondent No. 2 is false because admittedly the officer who had come on deputation went back in October, 1987 and thereafter also the contract of the petitioner was extended and consequently she has argued that the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act are not attracted in the present case. She has also argued that that persons junior to the petitioner were retained. This plea also did not find favour with the labour Court who held that it was not incumbent on the respondents to have a seniority list of daily wagers. She has further argued that the finding of the labour court that no seniority list is to be maintained of daily wagers is completely illegal because in industrial law there is no concept of daily wager or regular employee and the rights of the workman are determined from the number of days he has worked and by the fact of there being persons who had been appointed after him being permitted to continue. 4. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3, however, has argued that Chapter VA would not be applicable because it entails twin conditions; firstly, the completion of 12 months and secondly having worked for 240 days in those 12 months. As per him since the total employment of the petitioner was from 12.01.1987 to 31.12.1987, the first condition of her being in employment for 12 months was not fulfilled. This argument is noticed only to be rejected. If this will be so it would be open for industry to appoint persons for 364 days successively and escape the rigors of the Act. In Mohan Lal Vs. Management of Bharat Electronics Ltd., AIR 1981 SC 1253 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it would be enough if a workman had worked for 240 days out of the previous 12 calendar months to be rendered eligible to get the benefits of Section 25(F) of the Act. 5. The second argument of learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 is that admittedly the petitioner was overage for Government employment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has countered this argument by arguing that petitioner never claimed regular employment and was only claiming daily wage appointment and it was open to the respondents to have retrenched her. 6. The third argument of learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 is that the petitioner on her own showing is now 65 years of age, the relief of reinstatement cannot be granted to her. Learned counsel for the petitioner has again countered this by saying that if this Court comes to the conclusion that the respondents have violated the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Act, damages can be granted to the petitioner if, for any reason, reinstatement cannot be allowed. 7. I find merit in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner. Once it was established that after the return of the deputationist the petitioner was again reappointed, the plea taken that she was appointed for a specific work is wrong. Once that is so, Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act would have no effect. That leads us only on Section 25(F) of the Act. Admittedly no notice or compensation was given to the petitioner when her services were brought to an end on 31.12.1987. Resultantly the finding of the labour Court in this regard is reversed. Once that is so, Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act would have no effect. That leads us only on Section 25(F) of the Act. Admittedly no notice or compensation was given to the petitioner when her services were brought to an end on 31.12.1987. Resultantly the finding of the labour Court in this regard is reversed. Since the petitioner is now over 65 years of age, obviously the relief of reinstatement cannot be granted to her. It cannot also be lost sight of that she was employed only from 12.01.1987 to 31.12.1987. Keeping all the competing factors in mind, in my considered opinion, it is a fit case where the petitioner should be awarded damages of Rs. 50,000/-. Let the same be paid to her within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case the same are not paid within the aforesaid period, the petitioner would be entitled to interest thereon at the rate of 6% p.a. from 31.12.1987 till the date of payment. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.