INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947:

ss. 2.(s}, 2(oo) and 25-F-'Workman' engaged on contract basis - Termination of services of workman without complying with the provisions of s. 25-F - Labour Court ordering reinstatement without back wages - High Court setting aside reinstatement holding that the appointment was made without following recruitment rules and that it would not be in public interest to approve award of reinstatement after long lapse of time - HELD: The source of employment, the method of recruitment, the terms and conditions of employment/contract of service, the quantum of wages/pay and the mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not person is a workman within the meaning of s. 2(s) of the Act.

- Further, the definition of workman also does not make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis - Once the test of employment for hire or reward for doing the specified type of work is satisfied, the employee will fall within the definition of F 'workman' - Delay in adjudication of dispute by Labour Court or the writ petition filed by employer cannot be made a ground to justify the gross illegalities committed by the employer in 'terminating the services of the workman - Delay/Laches.

s.25-F read with ss.2(s) and 2(oo) - HELD: Provisions contained in s. 25-F (a) and (b) are mandatory and termination of service of a workman which amounts to retrenchment u/s. 2(oo) without complying with the mandates of s.25-F would be null and votd - There was no material to show that the engagement of the workman was discontinued by relying upon the terms and conditions of the employment - Judgment of High Court set aside - Award of reinstatement passed by Labour Court restored with wages for the period between the date of award and date of reinstatement.