SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 566

1997(3) Supreme 733
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi & Ors. -Petitioners
versus
State of Bihar & Ors. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7957 of 1996
(CC-6908/96)
Decided on 26-3-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioners : Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Termination of services of person appointed on daily wage basis can not be termed arbitrary since such employee had no right to the post.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW-Petitioners were appointed daily wage employees in Co-operative Training Institute by its Principal-They were not appointed to the posts in accordance with rules-They were temporary employees and their disengagement from service could not be construed to be retrenchment under Industrial Disputes Act-Since they had no right to the posts, their disengagement was not arbitrary. (Para 3)

       

ORDER

Delay condoned.

2. This special leave petition arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, made on 1.7.1996 in LPA No. 1213/95 confirming the order of the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 2311/95.

3. The admitted position is that the petitioner No. 1 came to be appointed as Assistant, Petitioner No. 2 as Driver and Petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 as Peons on different dates, viz., on August 1, 1988, November 10, 1989, May 31, 1987 and April 22, 1992. They were appointed in the Co-operative Training Institute, Deoghar by its Principal. They are admittedly daily wage employees. Their services came to be terminated by the Principal. Calling that termination in question, they filed a writ petition in the High Court. The main grievance of the petitioners before us is that termination of their services is in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The question for consideration, therefore, is: whether the petitioners can be said to have been retrenched within the meaning of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act? Every Department of the Government cannot be treated to be "industry". When the appointments are regulated by the statutory rules, the concept of "industry" to that extent stands excluded. Admittedly, they were not appointed to the posts in accordance with the rules but were engaged on the basis of need of the work. They are temporary employees working on daily wages. Under these circumstances, their disengagement from service cannot be construed to be a retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act. The concept of "retrenchment", therefore, cannot be stretched to such an extent as to cover these employees. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to contend that in the High Court, the petitioners did not contend that it is a case of retrenchment but termination of their services is arbitrary. Since they are only daily-wage employees and have no right to the posts, their disengagement is not arbitrary.

4. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

********

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top