IMPORTANT POINT
After the amendment of Rule 5(1) the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 payment of retrenchment compensation along with termination order is not a condition precedent.

Headnote:Editor s Note-In this case, respondent workman had raised the ground that termination of his service was violative of Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. He also took an alternative ground that termination of his service was void for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Supreme Court while holding that the termination was not violative of Rule 5 of the Service Rules, held that the termination was null and void as Section 25-F was not complied with. The workman was ordered to be reinstated with 50 backwages.
       (i) M.C.D. Service Regulations, 1959, Regulation 4(1) r/w Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1949 and Rule 5-Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965-Rule 5 as amended on 1.5.1965-Appellant was appointed on temporary post-Termination without notice and without paying retrenchment compensation simultaneously with termination order-Plea that termination void-Held : termination void in terms of Rule 5 of 1949 Rules-Rule superseded by Rule 5 of 1965 Rules as amended on 1.5.1965-In terms of 1965 Rules payment of retrenchment compensation is not condition precedent-Compensation could be paid after retrenchment order-Termination not violative of Rule 5 of 1965 Rules.
       Held : A mere look at Rule 5 of the 1949 Rules shows that if the service of a temporary government servant has to be terminated forthwith without waiting for one month, then as laid down by the first proviso to the said rule, concerned government servant has to be given simultaneous payment of the sum laid down therein. It is this payment as a condition precedent that can snap forthwith the relationship of employer and employee. It, therefore, becomes clear that any order of termination which is not simultaneously supported by payment of requisite amount as laid down by the proviso would not result in legal termination of the service of the concerned government servant as per the said Rule. However the respondent-workman s services were terminated on 29.4.1966 when the Rules of 1949 were no longer on the statute book. They stood superceded by the latter Rules of 1965. It is, of course, true that the service regulations referred to 1949 Rules but those Rules were superceded and got repealed and re-enacted under Article 309 of the Constitution of India by the President of India by promulgating 1965 Rules consequently as laid down by Section 8 of the General Clauses Act of 1897, reference in the service regulations of the appellant-Corporation to 1949 Rules will have to be read as reference to the re-enacted Rules of 1965 which had repealed the earlier Rules and had re-enacted 1965 Rules. The aforesaid Rule 5 of the latter Rules as amended operated from 1st of May, 1965. A mere look at the earlier un-amended Rule 5 of the latter Rules shows, as laid down by its the then un-amended proviso, that service of a temporary government servant could not be terminated forthwith without payment to him of the compensation equivalent to the sum provided therein. Such offer of compensation, therefore, was a condition precedent to such termination prior to the amendment of the proviso to the said Rule with retrospective effect by the latter amended Rule, as seen above. The amended proviso to Rule 5 of the latter Rules with effect from 1.5.1965 deleted the words "by payment to him" which were earlier found in the un-amended proviso to Rule 5(1) of the latter Rules. Instead after the word "forthwith" the words "and on such termination the government servant shall be entitled to claim" were added. Thus, what was a condition precedent under the un-amended proviso to Rule 5 of the latter Rules became a condition subsequent. Consequently, after 1.5.1965, as per Rule 5 of the latter Rules there remained no necessity for the employer while forthwith terminating the services of temporary government servant to offer him compensation simultaneously with the termination order. Such service could be terminated forthwith and termination would immediately come into force. Payment of appropriate compensation as per the proviso to Rule 5 on or after 1.5.1965 could be effected even later on though, of course, within reasonable time thereafter. This change in the Rule with effect from 1.5.1965 directly got attracted on the facts of the present case as the respondent-workman s services were terminated after this amendment came into force as his services were terminated on 29.4.1966, as seen earlier. The argument that as laid down by Regulation 4(1), the Rules for the time being in force as mentioned therein would refer to only those Rules which were in force when Service Regulations of 1959 were promulgated and not any latter Rules cannot be accepted. Rules for the time being in force will have a nexus with the regulation of condition of service of the municipal officers at the relevant time as expressly mentioned in Regulation 4(1). Therefore, whenever the question of regulation of conditions of service of the municipal officers comes up for consideration, the relevant Rules in force at that time have to be looked into. This is the clear thrust of Regulation 4(1). Its scope and ambit cannot be circumscribed and frozen only to the point of time in the year 1959, when the Service Regulations were promulgated. If such was the intention of the framers of the Regulation, Regulation 4(1) would have employed a different phraseology, namely, "rules at present in force" instead of the phraseology "rules for the time being in force". The phraseology "rules for the time being in force" would necessarily means rules in force from time to time and not rules in force only at a fixed point of time in 1959 as tried to be suggested by learned counsel for the respondent-workman. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, it must be held that the termination of the respondent-workman from service on 29.4.1966 was not violative of amended Rule 5 of the latter Rules of 1965 which only applied in his case. Therefore, there was no obligation, on the part of the appellant-Corporation to simultaneously after requisite compensation to the respondent-workman as a condition precedent to such termination and such compensation could be offered to him within reasonable time later on. The termination had to be treated to have come into force forthwith when the order of termination was passed and served on the respondent-workman. Non-payment of requisite compensation as per the said Rule even later on did not attract any invalidating consequences. (Paras 9, 13 & 14)
       (ii) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 25-F r/w Section 2(oo) [as it stood prior to insertion of clause (bb)]-Retrenchment-Legality of-Appointment of respondent on temporary post-Termination after he put in more than 240 days of continuous service-Retrenchment compensation as contemplated u/s 25-F not paid along with retrenchment order-Retrenchment was in 1966-Termination not by way of punishment-Termination of service violative of Section 25-F and, therefore, null and void-Respondent entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and all further consequential benefits-Long lapse of 33 years after termination-Appellant could not be saddled with burden of payment of full back wages-Respondent entitled to 50 back wages from date of termination till actual reinstatement. (Paras 18 & 19)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Majmudar, J.-This appeal on grant of special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India by the Management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi against Respondent No. 1, who is the only contesting party, has brought in challenge the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No. 93 of 1982 by which the High Court directed reinstatement of Respondent No. 1 in service with continuity entitling him to receive all salaries and allowances from the appellant-Corporation. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant-Corporation against the said order, a few relevant introductory facts need to be noticed at the outset.

Background Facts :

2. Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-workman ) was appointed by the appellant-Corporation on the temporary post of Section Officer (Civil) on 5.5.1964 with the condition that he would be considered for confirmation after one year of satisfactory service. It is the case of the appellant-Corporation that the respondent-workman was never considered for confirmation. On 1.8.1964 he was informed that his services were not required by the Corporation w.e.f. 1.9.1964. Thus he ceased to be the employee of the appellant-Corporation from that date. However, from 1.10.1964 he was re-appointed on a vacant post caused by the termination of services of another employee. It is not in dispute between the parties that he continued to be in the service of the appellant-Corporation without any break till 31.3.1965. According to the appellant-Corporation, he was again re-employed on 1.4.1965 and he continued to be in service till 29.4.1966 when his services were terminated. It becomes at once clear that though, according to the appellant-Corporation, the respondent-workman s services were terminated on 31.3.1965 and he was re-employed on the next day i.e. 1.4.1965, in substance there was no break in his service. It is, therefore, to be taken as a well established fact on record that from 1.10.1964 till 29.4.1966 for about 18 months the respondent-workman was in continuous service as a temporary Section Officer (Civil) and was working on a vacant substantive post caused by the termination of services of another employee.

3. On account of the aforesaid termination of service, the respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute and got it referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour Court, Delhi. The terms of reference were as follows :

"Whether Prem Chand Gupta, Section Officer (Overseer) has been wrongly and/or illegally discharged from service and if so, what relief is he entitled?"

The Labour Court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that as the respondent-workman s services were terminated by the appellant-Corporation in exercise of its powers under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ) and the said action of the appellant-Corporation was not punitive in nature, the respondent-workman was not entitled to any relief. However, the Labour Court further held on facts that the respondent-workman could be said to have been terminated from service without payment of retrenchment compensation as a condition precedent to such retrenchment. Still it was held that the said retrenchment could not be covered under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the I.D. Act ) as he was not terminated due to the staff being in excess of the requirement of the Corporation. Thus even on the ground of violation of Section 25-F he was not entitled to any relief. The said decision was rendered on 7.1.1970.

4. Being aggrieved by the said decision of the Labour Court, the respondent-workman filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Delhi. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the said writ petition and confirmed the findings r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 1548

IMPORTANT POINTAfter the amendment of Rule 5(1) the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 payment of retrenchment compensation along with termination order is not a condition precedent.

Cases Referred (7)

IMPORTANT POINT
After the amendment of Rule 5(1) the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 payment of retrenchment compensation along with termination order is not a condition precedent.