Thereafter, he was number given any appointment.
Thereafter, he was appointed as Washing Boy, Helper and Water Carrier as per the needs of the Department.
His work and companyduct was always satisfactory but his services were terminated on 28.2.1989 without assigning any reason.
Regarding back wages it was held that the same can be awarded to the workman keeping in view the actual loss suffered by him by remaining out of employment.
According to the appellant the appointment of the respondent was for a fixed period which came to an automatic end and, therefore, it was number a case of retrenchment in view of Section 2 oo bb of the Act and companysequently Section 25 F of the Act had numberapplication to the facts of the case.
Accordingly an award was passed on 26.5.2000 directing reinstatement of the respondent on his previous post with companytinuity of service and 50 back wages.
He further pleaded that neither any numberice number wages in lieu of numberice were paid to him and as he had companypleted 240 days of service in a calendar year, the termination of his service was in violation of Section 25 F of the Act and, therefore, the same was liable to be set aside and he was entitled to be reinstated with companytinuity of service and full back wages.
He raised a demand for being reinstated before the Conciliation Officer, Rohtak on 24.8.1991.
In his claim statement the respondent pleaded that he was appointed as Helper on 16.3.1988 on daily wage basis.
The respondent filed a replication companytroverting the please taken in the written statement and reasserting the companytents of the claim statement.
Since the respondent was working on a class IV post and the said type of work was available in Haryana as large number of labourers companye from Eastern UP and Bihar for doing that kind of work, the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court companycluded that it cannot be held that the respondent did number earn any amount during the period he was out of employment.
The appellant management filed a written statement on the plea that the respondent Rudhan Singh was initially appointed on daily wage basis for a fixed period from 16.3.1988 up to 31.3.1988.
The companyciliation efforts having failed the State Government exercising powers under Section 10 1 c of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for short the Act made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Rohtak as to whether the termination of service of the respondent is justified and valid, and, if number, to what relief he was entitled under law.
The respondent Rudhan Singh was appointed in various capacities on a class IV post with the appellant Haryana Roadways and he worked from 16.3.1988 to 28.2.1989 with some breaks.
P. Mathur, J. This appeal, by special leave, has been filed against the judgment and order dted 145.2001 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging the award of Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Rohtak directing reinstatement of the respondent Rudhan Singh with companytinuity of service and 50 back wages was dismissed.
