By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgement and order dated 23.12.2003 passed by the Labour Court in Reference (LCA) No. 577 of 1998 whereby the Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and 25% backwages. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent was engaged on part-time temporary and ad hoc basis as sweeper by the petitioner on 1.7.1983. Vide letter dated 3.8.1996, the petitioner was directed that daily rated employee cannot be continued in service for a long period. Therefore, the services of the respondent came to be discontinued by the petitioner with effect from 6.8.1996.
3. The respondent raised industrial dispute against the action of the petitioner by way of filing Reference (LCA) No.
577 of 1998. In the statement of claim, the respondent contended that her services have been terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
4. The petitioner resisted the said statement of claim filed by the respondent by way of filing written statement. It is stated that petitioner is not an industry and therefore, provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable. It is also stated that the respondent is not a workman.
5. After hearing both sides, Labour Court passed the order as aforesaid. Hence the petitioner is before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Labour Court has relied on Circular dated 26.12.1980 which was put in abeyance. Therefore, there was no question of giving benefit of the said Circular. This fact was not considered by the Labour Court while passing the impugned order. He further contended that the respondent was appointed as daily wage employee. Therefore, she cannot be restored to the original position with continuity of service and 25% backwages. She was a part-time temporary and ad hoc employee working on daily wages. Therefore, the Labour Court has committed error in directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and 25% backwages. The said order, therefore, requires to be quashed and set aside.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of the Labour Court and contended the said order is just and proper. No interference is called for by this Court with the said order of the Labour Court.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Before proceedings, it is clear that the respondent was working on temporary basis. Nothing is recorded that Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act was followed. In that view of the matter, the order of the Labour Court directing the petitioner to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and 25% backwages is required to be quashed and set aside. The period between retrenchment and award will be considered while regularising the daily wager to work charge. Therefore, the order of the Labour Court is required to be modified. The respondent is restored to the original post without continuity of service only for the purpose of regularisation. Order directing the petitioner to pay 25% backwages is quashed and set aside.
9. In the result, the petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
10. The implementation of the order will be effected within six months from today.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (pkn)