IMPORTANT POINT
In the facts and circumstances of the case the termination of the services of the appellants amounted to retrenchment. The appropriate provision which should govern their case is Section 25FFF of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 2(oo) r/w 25F, 25FFF or 2(bb)-Retrenchment or termination of service as a result of non-renewal of contract of employment after its expiry-Status of project or scheme employees in telecom circle-Whether the workmen recruited for discharging temporary job under a project insist on compliance of Section 25F of I.D. Act if their services are dispensed with on the project coming to an end-Single Judge holding Section 25F is attracted-D.B. holding to the contrary-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether termination of services of appellants amounted to retrenchment? (Yes) which provision will govern their case Section 25F or Section 25FFF (the later)-Appeal allowed accordingly.
       Held : The engagement of a workman as a daily-wager does not by itself amount to putting the workman on notice that he was being engaged in a scheme or project which was to last only for a particular length of time or upto to the occurrence of some event, and therefore, the workman ought to know that his employment was short-lived. The contract of employment consciously entered into by the workman with the employer would result in a notice to the workman on the date of the commencement of the employment itself that his employment was short-lived and as per the terms of the contract the same was liable to termination on the expiry of the contract and the scheme or protect coming to an end. The workman may not therefore complain that by the act of employer his employment was coming to an abrupt termination. To exclude the termination of a scheme or project employee from the definition of retrenchment it is for the employer to prove the abovesaid ingredients so as to attract the applicability of sub-clause (bb) abovesaid. In the case in hand, the respondent-employer has failed in alleging and proving the ingredients of sub-clause (bb), as stated hereinabove. All that has been proved is that the appellants were engaged as casual workers or daily-wagers in a project. For want of proof attracting applicability of sub-clause (bb), it has to be held that the termination of the services of the appellants amounted to retrenchment. The appropriate provision which should govern the cases of the appellants is Section 25FFF. (Paras 14 and 15)
       Held further : The employee cannot be blamed for the delay. The learned Single Judge has denied the relief of back-wages while directing the appellants to be reinstated. That appears to be a just and reasonable order. Moreover, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was not put in issue by the appellants by filing an appeal. (Para 18)
       Held consequently : For all the foregoing reasons we are of the opinion that the decision of the Division Bench deserves to be set aside and that of the learned Single Judge restored, except for the finding that the appellants were not project employees. (Para 19)
       But held : During the course of hearing it was stated at the Bar that there are a number of matters pending in different fora, Industrial-cum-Labour Court or High Court, raising similar issues awaiting decision in this case. We clarify that all such pending cases shall be heard and decided in accordance with the law as stated hereinabove. The project in which the workmen were engaged has come to an end. The respondent Government may consider the appellants being accommodated in some other project or scheme or regular employment, if available, by issuing suitable instructions or guidelines. If it be not possible, the respondent shall be at liberty to terminate the employment of the appellants after reinstating them as directed by the High Court and then complying with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. (Para 20)
       Held finally : The appeals are allowed. The impugned decision of the Division Bench is set aside and that of the learned single Judge is restored as above. The appellants shall be entitled to their costs throughout. (Para 21)

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.-A number of workers were engaged as casual labourers for the purpose of expansion of telecom facilities in the district of Belgaum, Karnataka during the years 1985-86 and 1986-87. The services of these workers were utilized for digging, laying cables, erecting poles, drawing lines and other connected works. It appears that the service of these workmen were terminated sometime during the year 1987 and they were not engaged on work thereafter. In Daily Rated Casual Labour employed under P&T Deptt, through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch vs. Union of India & Ors., 1988 (1) SCC 122, the Supreme Court by its judgment dated 27.10.1987 directed the Department to formulate a scheme under which all casual labourers who had rendered more than one year s continuous service could be absorbed. Pursuant to the said directions, the Department of Telecommunications formulated a scheme called "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1989" which came into force w.e.f. 01.10.1989. A list of casual labourers was drawn up for inclusion under the said scheme. On 16 01.1990, a number of workers whose names were not included for regularization under the said scheme, raised disputes before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Mangalore. Conciliation proceedings were initiated but they failed. Several disputes were referred for adjudication by the Labour Court in the years 1994 to 1997. The disputes which were referred were almost identically framed. In substance, the dispute was - whether the termination of the services of (name of worker w.e.f. (a date in 1986 or 1987), Casual Mazdoor by the Management of Telecom District Manager, Belgaum is justified or not? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?

2. A consolidated enquiry was held into all the disputes and they were disposed of by a common award dated 21.06.1999 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Bangalore. The Tribunal directed the employer to reinstate all the workmen into service, with the benefit of continuity of service and with 50 of basic wages. The employer filed ten writ petitions in the High Court of Karnataka which were disposed of on 16.09.1999 by a common judgment delivered by a learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge held that the workers were not project employees as contended by the employer. The appointment was not for any particular project and hence would not be governed by sub-clause (bb) of clause (oo) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (hereinafter the Act for short). Of the workmen each had rendered a continuous service within the meaning of Section 25B of the Act for a period over 240 days, and, therefore, their termination amounted to retrenchment which was invalid for non-compliance with Section 25F of the Act. The workmen were, therefore, entitled to reinstatement. However, there was a delay of nearly 7 to 9 years in raising the disputes. The workmen had not placed any material on record to hold that there was no delay and the disputes were promptly raised. It was because of this delay that the employer was not in a position to produce the record relating to the days for which the workmen had worked inasmuch as according to the standing instructions of the Department, the registers of muster rolls were preserved for a period of 5 years only, whereafter they were eliminated. The Tribunal did not err in believing the oral evidence adduced by the workmen as to the period of their employment (i.e. for over 240 days). On account of delay in raising the dispute, the High Court held that the workmen were not entitled to any back wages. The learned Single Judge directed the award to be modified to that extent and upheld the Tribunal s award to the extent to which it directed reinstatement with the benefit of continuity of service and consequential benefits but without back wages.

3. The employer filed intra-court writ appeals under Section 4 of the Karnataka High

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 376

IMPORTANT POINTIn the facts and circumstances of the case the termination of the services of the appellants amounted to retrenchment. The appropriate provision which should govern their case is Section 25FFF of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Cases Referred (9)

IMPORTANT POINT
In the facts and circumstances of the case the termination of the services of the appellants amounted to retrenchment. The appropriate provision which should govern their case is Section 25FFF of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.