Kurukshetra University and Others vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another

K. Kannan, J.—The award under challenge is a direction for reinstatement and compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards back wages with continuity of service. The initial engagement of the workman had been made on work-charged basis for a period of six months on 14.01.1986. Later, a fresh appointment order was issued on 07.04.1986 on ad hoc basis on a scale of Rs. 600-1100 for a period of six months. This was again extended by a fresh letter of appointment on 14.07.1986 and two further extensions were given through orders dated 21.03.1987 and 22.04.1987. The last of such engagement enured to the workman right till 21.09.1987. After the expiry of the said period, there was no further extension, it gave rise to termination of service that was made the subject of challenge before the Labour Court on a reference sought through the Government. To a claim by the workman on the ground that he had completed 240 days of continuous service, the contention of the University was that the recruitment to the University was governed by Recruitment Rules and the minimum qualification for the post of Draftsman as prescribed under the Rules was three years diploma in Civil Engineering or diploma in Draftsman with two years experience. The workman admittedly did not possess the minimum qualification that was necessary. The appointment itself had been ad hoc during the time when the construction was in progress and the respective orders of appointment specifically spelt out the periods of appointment and that they would not enure beyond the time when the regular appointment was made. It was brought out in evidence that such regular appointment had also been made as per the Recruitment Rules and therefore, there was no extension done to the workman.

The Labour Court found that in view of the fact that the workman had completed 240 days, the termination amounted to retrenchment and for alleged violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act directed reinstatement. The order is bad for two reasons. One, the appointments had been on specific contracts delimiting his period of engagement upto a particular period and when there had been no renewal of a contract, the expiry of term of the contract constituted the termination, which was excepted from the definition of Section 2(oo) by virtue of the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Two, the appointment itself had been made on a contingency of its operation till a regular appointment was made and it was the contention of the management that such regular appointment had also been made. It shall also be noted that the workman himself had not the necessary minimum qualification and he could not have been also lawfully employed as per the Recruitment Rules. The direction for reinstatement is clearly erroneous, for the termination that resulted by the operation of the period of engagement coming to an end does not amount to retrenchment and consequently, there was no violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The writ petition is allowed. There shall be however no direction as to costs.