Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak v. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak & Anr.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. C.W.P. No. 20721 of 2008. -4- The facts as asserted by counsel for the petitioner/University is not in dispute that the respondent/Workman was engaged for a period of 89 days. The terms and conditions specified therein would cover the terms of appointment of the respondent/Workman, as is apparent from Rule 4 (c) of Rules, which reads as follow :- “4. (c) Extent of Application. Persons appointed on contract who will be governed by the terms of contract; xxxxx " In the light of above Rule, the terms of appointment of the respondent/Workman was purely contractual on 89 days basis to start with, which provided that his engagement could be terminated earlier at any time without any notice and on the expiry of the period of contract, the services would automatically stand terminated. It is not in dispute that the respondent/Workman joined on 03.07.2001 and continued upto 30.09.2001 (78 days) in compliance and in accordance with the appointment letter dated

03.07.2001 (Anenxure-P-1). Thereafter, the respondent/Workman worked with the petitioner/University from 26.11.2001 to 22.02.2002 (78 days), then from 18.03.2002 to 16.04.2002 (27 days), and then from 17.04.2003 to

14.07.2003 (78 days). It is not in dispute that all these appointments were purely on contract basis. A finding had been returned by the Labour Court in the impugned Award that the respondent/workman had not completed 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. That finding is not in dispute in the present writ petition. As regards non compliance of Section 25-G of the Act is concerned, again a finding had been returned by the Labour Court that the same had been followed in the light C.W.P. No. 20721 of 2008. -5- of the fact that after the termination of the services of the respondent/Workman, two posts on regular basis for appointment as Drivers were advertised, the respondent/Workman also participated in the said selection process, but was not selected. Naresh Kumar and Rajesh Rathi were appointed as Drivers. Having participated in the selection process and failed in the selection, the provisions as far as Section 25-G are concerned, are stood fully complied with. This aspect is also not disputed in the present writ petition. The only question, which requires to be considered in the present case is whether appointment of Parminder, Jasminder, and Jai Bhagwan, who were Class-IV employees (peons) working with the petitioner/University, who had been assigned duties of drivers on vehicles as purely temporary arrangement by the Vice Chancellor of the petitioner/University, would amount to their appointments as drivers entitling the respondent/Workman to contend that Section 25-H of the Act stands violated. It is not in dispute that as per Rule 4(c) of the Maharishi Dayanand University Service and Conduct Rules for Non Teaching Employees are not applicable to the persons appointed on contract basis as their services would be covered by the terms of contract, therefore, no benefit can be claimed by the respondent/Workman of the said statutory Rules, which are not applicable to the services of the respondent/Workman. The contention of counsel for respondent/Workman in this regard, therefore, cannot be accepted. As regard the temporary arrangement made by the Vice Chancellor by assigning duties to the peons of drivers cannot be said to be an appointment on the post. It is a temporary arrangement made by the Vice Chancellor as a purely stop gap arrangement, which does not confer any right on the said persons to hold the posts. Since, no appointments had been made C.W.P. No. 20721 of 2008. -6- on the posts of drivers by the petitioner/University, the contention of counsel for the respondent/Workman that Section 25-H of the Act has been violated, cannot be sustained. The Award, passed by the Labour Court, therefore, cannot be held to be in accordance with law, and accordingly, deserves to be set aside. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned Award dated 27.08.2009 (Annexure-P-4) passed by the Labour Court, Rohtak, is hereby set aside. April 22, 2010. sjks. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE