Director, Health and Family Welfare and Others vs Workman, Shakuntla Devi

Mahesh Grover, J.—The Petitioners have impugned the award of the Labour Court, Bhatinda dated 14.3.2005. The Respondent/workman claimed a reference u/s 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the following effect:

Whether termination of services of workman Shakuntla Devi is justified and in order? If not, so, to what relief is she entitled?

The Respondent/workman had raised a demand and alleged that he was appointed as a Part Time Peon since 10.7.1991 on a permanent job @ Rs. 119/- per month/per hour as her wages and her work and conduct was satisfactory, but despite that, her services were terminated on 19.2.1994 verbally and without assigning any reason. She pleaded that she was appointed against a regular post and had completed more than 240 days of service and his termination was illegal without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. She further pleaded that since persons juniors to her have been permitted to work, therefore, there was violation of the provisions of Section 25G and 25H of the Act.

The Petitioner pleaded that it was not an industry and the Respondent was not a workman. She was appointed as a Part Time Peon for four hours daily on the D.C. rates. Her term of appointment expired on 19.2.2004 and she was relieved from her duty. It was also pleaded that the Respondent had not completed 240 days of service and denied that any person junior to the Respondent was working with the Petitioner.

The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent/workman had completed 240 days of service and his termination was illegal and it was done without compliance of the provisions of the Act. It then directed reinstatement of the Respondent/workman along with 40% of the back wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 4.5.2001.

Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

The question which has been raised herein was referred to the Full Bench in C.W.P. No. 4660 of 1999 and in the admission order, the petition was ordered to be listed after the decision of the Full Bench.

The Full Bench of this Court has since rendered the decision on 22.5.2008 and it has been concluded as under:

In view of the facts mentioned above, we conclude that a part time worker would fall within the definition of a workman as postulated u/s 2(s) of the I.D. Act. However, nature of his employment will be that of a contractual employee and employer be at liberty to terminate him and his termination would not entitle him to get any benefit under the provisions of Chapter VA and VB of the I.D. Act. It is further clarified that to enforce rights and obligations arising under contract of employment, may be in writing or oral, the part time worker may invoke the provisions of I.D. Act other than contained in Chapter VA and VB of the Act.

In view of the aforesaid, when there is no dispute that the Respondent/workman was working on part time basis and in view of the observations made by the Full Bench as extracted above, I am of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned award deserves to be set aside.

Ordered accordingly.