The High Court upheld the judgment of the Labour Court, Amritsar which had directed respondents reinstatement with 25 back wages from the date of demand raised by the respondent.
The factual position in a nutshell is as under On 4.2.1988 the Board appointed respondent as Peon on daily wage basis from 8.1.1988 to 29.2.1988.
However, taking numbere of the delayed demand, the wages were restricted.
After about 8 years on 1.4.1997 the respondent sent a demand numberice questioning the order of disengagement.
In terms of the orders of the engagement, the respondents services were dispensed with in the month of June 1989 in terms of the terms and companyditions of the companytractual appointment.
On 7.3.1988 the period indicated was extended on the same terms.
On 12.5.1989 one Surat Singh was appointed on a permanent basis.
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court passed an award on 14.1.2003 holding that disengagement of respondent was illegal and he was entitled to reinstatement.
The position of law relating to fixed appointments and the scope and ambit of Section 2 00 bb and Section 25 F were examined by this Court in several cases.
It was also indicated therein that the daily wager was appointed against vacant post which was temporary in character.
There were similar extensions on 30.6.1988, 10.11.1988 and 7.4.1989.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. The Punjab State Electricity Board in short the Board questions legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the respondent had rendered service in excess of 240 days in twelve calendar months preceding his retrenchment and, therefore, provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in short the Act were required to be followed.
