IMPORTANT POINT
When a doctor discharges his duties of attending to the patients and, in addition thereto supervises the work of the persons subordinate to him, he cannot be held to be regarded as a workman u/s 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT

Kirpal, J.-The appellant had appointed respondent No. 2 as a Doctor in the General Duty Medical Officer Grade-II on 17th May, 1978. The appointment was on ad hoc basis for a period of six months with effect from 18th May, 1978.

2. Along with respondent No. 2 three other doctors were similarly appointed. All the four doctors were posted at the First Aid Posts which are being maintained by the appellant corporation for providing emergency medical services in case of accidents etc. during all the shifts. This ad hoc appointment to the temporary post was first extended for a period of three months by order dated 30th November, 1978. Second extension was granted for a period of two months by order dated 7th March, 1979.

3. The aforesaid temporary appointment of respondent No. 2, along with three other doctors who were appointed with him, thus continued for a period of eleven months. By office order dated 17th April, 1979 these doctors were informed that on the completion of their term of appointment on ad hoc basis they would be relieved of their duties with effect from the afternoon of 18th May, 1978. Respondent No. 2 made a representation dated 20th April, 1979 on the receipt of the aforesaid order dated 17th April, 1979. It was contended therein that he had worked for a period of more than 240 days and that his services were terminated without assigning any reason. It appears from the record that in order to fill the said vacancies on regular basis advertisements were issued and interviews were held first in the year 1979 and thereafter in the year 1981. Respondent No. 2 had applied but was not found suitable for selection. It is thereafter that respondent No. 2 raised an industrial dispute regarding the alleged illegal termination of his services by order dated 17th April, 1979. Conciliation proceedings took place but it resulted in failure report being made by the Conciliation Officer. Thereupon the Government of Bihar made a reference to the Labour Court, under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act ), for deciding the following dispute : "Whether the termination of services of Dr. Chandrahas Prasad by the management from 17.4.1979 is justified? If not, whether he is entitled to reinstatement/or any other relief?"

4. The main contention which was raised by respondent No. 2 before the Labour Court was that he had completed 240 days of service and was entitled to a notice of one month as provided by Section 25-F of the Act and as this has not been given, therefore, his termination was bad in law. It was also submitted that retrenchment compensation under the said section had not been given and he was also entitled to the benefit of Section 25-H of the Act and he should have been appointed again. On behalf of the appellant it was submitted that respondent No. 2 was not workman and that he had been appointed for a specified period and on completion thereof he was relieved from duty and, therefore, it could not be said that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were in any way attracted. It was also contended that respondent No. 2, after he had been relieved, had applied for fresh selection against open advertisement and, therefore, it must be regarded as if he had waived his right to challenge his termination of service.

5. The parties led evidence before the Labour Court. Thereupon, by award dated 25th February, 1986 the Labour Court rejected the appellant s contention and held that as no notice of one month, as contemplated by Section 25-F of the Act, had been given to respondent No. 2, therefore, his termination was bad in law. It accordingly ordered the reinstatement of respondent No. 2 with full back wages. It also awarded interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum.

6. The appellant then filed a writ petition before the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court challenging the said award but without success. Thereafter special leave petition, which was filed by the appellant, was g