WRIT PETITION 8429 of 2008 on 4 June 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. No. 8429 of 2008.Date of Decision : January 28, 2009.

Jaswinder Kaur

..... Petitioner.

Versus.

Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurgaon, and others

.... Respondents.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.

Present:Mr. G.P. Singh, Advocate,for the petitioner.

Mr. Sandeep Khungar, Advocate,for the respondents No. 2 to 4.

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).

The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner-workman challenging the award dated 04.06.2006 (Anneuxre-P-9), passed bythe Labour Court, Gurgaon, vide which the reference made to the LabourCourt by the appropriate Government stands rejected against the workman.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that it is not in dispute thatthe workman has completed 240 days with the respondents. It is also not indispute that the workman had been continuing with the respondents since09.03.1982 till her services were terminated on 08.05.1995. He relies uponthe initial appointment letter dated 01.03.1982 (Annexure-P-1) to submit thatthis appointment of the workman on the post of Craft Teacher was on regularbasis as is apparent for the reason that the period of probation of one year was specifically mentioned therein. He submits that in the light of thatappointment letter, the workman had continued with the respondents andtherefore, the services of the workman were terminated taking a plea thatshe was a project worker and on completion of the work, her services wereno more required. Further submission of counsel for the petitioner is thatthe respondents have failed to relate the services of the workman with theproject i.e. D.W. project which is alleged to have come to an end leading tothe dispensing with services of the workman. Counsel for the petitionerfurther submits that persons junior to the workman namely Ms. NirmalaGrover has been retained in service whereas the workman's services havebeen dispensed with which is in violation of Section 25-F of the IndustrialDisputes Act.

Counsel for the respondents while supporting the award takesa stand that in the year 1990, the appointment letter dated 26.07.1990 copywhereof has been placed on record by the petitioner as Annexure-P-2, theworkman was appointed as a Craft Teacher on part time basis in the D.I.C.project wherein it was specifically mentioned that her appointment wouldbe for a duration the project continues and if there is availability of funds.This appointment letter further states that the services of the workmancould be dispensed with by giving one month notice. He in the light ofthis document further submits that D.I.C. Project came to an end andthereafter, the workman was appointed in another project i.e. D.W. Project.He submits that on completion of the said project, the services of theworkman were dispensed with as per the terms of appointment letter andfurther he submits that all craft centres which were being run by therespondent society stood closed due to non availability of financial support resulting in termination of all craft teachers working in those projects. Hefurther submits that Ms. Nirmala Grover who was appointed initially as acraft teacher, was given an offer on the post of Receptionist who acceptedthe same. Further the petitioner was also given an offer but the same wasnot accepted by her.

Conclusion

I have gone through the impugned award dated 04.06.2004(Annexure-P-9), passed by the Industrial Disputes-cum-Labour Court,Gurgaon. Perusal of the same would show that the findings have beenrecorded that the services of the workman have been terminated oncompletion of the projects and therefore, the workman was not entitled tothe benefit under the Industrial Disputes Act. Further a finding has alsobeen given that Section 25-G of the Act would not come into effect for thereason that the nature of alternative appointment given to Ms. NirmalaGrover was not on the post of Art and Craft teacher, on which post theworkman was working. The statement Annexure-P-7 has been referred toby counsel for the petitioner to substantiate his submission that no detailshave been mentioned about the project on which the workman is alleged tohave worked but the perusal of the same would show that it has beenspecifically stated by Amba Parsad, Secretary of the respondent institutionwho appeared as M.W.1 that initially the workman was appointed in theyear 1990 in the D.I.C. project as Stitching Teacher (Craft Teacher). WhenD.I.C. project was completed thereafter, the workman was appointed in theD.W. project. On completion of this project, the services of the workmanwere terminated vide Ex. M.6. Further perusal of the statement wouldshow that copy of the budget of D.W. project in which the workman wasworking and on its closure, her services were terminated, was placed on record as Ex.M.7. Therefore, the contention of counsel for the petitionerthat there was nothing on record which would show and specify the project,cannot be accepted.

The further contention of counsel for the petitioner that theworkman was not appointed on contract basis but was appointed on regularbasis to some extent may be correct when we peruse the order ofappointment (Annexure-P-1) but the subsequent appointment letter dated26.07.1990 (Anneuxre-P-2) which is Ex. M.4 before the Labour Court,would show that her appointment was for a specified period with a riderthat it was to continue till the available funds. The ground for terminationwas also specified thereunder i.e. in case of completion of the project ornon availability of the funds. Having accepted the said offer by theworkman it cannot now be said that she was not working in the project.The evidence which has been produced and adduced before the LabourCourt by the respondents go a long way to show that the services of theworkman as a matter of fact stood terminated on the basis of completion ofthe project, and therefore, Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Actwould not come into play as the termination of the workman would becovered by clause (bb) of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Actwhich would not be retrenchment.

The further contention of counsel for the petitioner thatSection 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act has been violated, also wouldnot be of any help to her because the post on which Ms. Nirmala Groverwas re-appointed is not the same post on which the workman (i.e. Art andCraft Teacher) was working as Ms. Nirmala Grover was appointed on thepost of Receptionist and has continued as such.

In the light of the above, I do not find any illegality in theimpugned award, therefore, the present writ petition deserves to bedismissed.

Ordered accordingly.

January 28,2009.sjks.

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE