SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.A. DESAI AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.
K.C. Joshi, Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 3187 of 1982, D/-23-4-1985.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. K. Gupta, Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. B. Datta, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Rishi Kesh, Mr. Badri Prasad, Mr. Ajit Pudissary, Mr. Girish Chandra and Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocates with him for Respondents.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33(4) - Industrial Employment Act, 1946 – Section 13B - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 12, 14, 16, 310, 311 - Income-tax Act, 1961 - Section 192, 89, 17(3) - Income-tax Rules - Rule 21A - Service - Appointment was Temporary - Terminated - Appellant was appointed as Assistant Store Keeper and was posted - Later on when Corporation decided to recruit Store Keeper, appellant was selected in open competition and was appointed - He was posted and later sent back - Office order recites that appellant has been appointed as Store Keeper till further orders and post is sanctioned - In other words, a man selected in an open competition was offered post which was to last for 22 days roughly - He was also told that his appointment was purely temporary and that other terms of service were those as set out in letter one of which was that appellant will be on probation for a period of six months from date of appointment and same may be extended at discretion of appointing authority and that appointment may be terminated at any time by a months notice given by either side - Whether service of appellant was terminated in accordance with law or regulation or in a thoroughly arbitrary manner - Whether post has been abolished or whether retaining juniors, inconvenient person was thrown out under garb of being surplus - Whether substantial and adequate compensation would be more acceptable to him or reinstatement with backwages - Whether Commission would be entitled to deduct income-tax while making payment – Held, Court would like to make it abundantly clear that each appellant would be entitled to relief under Sec. 89 of Income-tax Act which provides that where, by reason of any portion of assessees salary being paid in arrears or in advance or by reason of his having received in any one financial year salary for more than 12 months or a payment which under provisions of clause (3) of Section 17 is a profit in lieu of salary, his income is assessed at a rate higher than that it would otherwise have been assessed, Income-tax Officer shall on an application made to him in this behalf grant such relief as may be prescribed - Prescribed relief is set out in Rule 21A of Income-tax Rules - Appellant is entitled to relief under See. 89 because compensation herein awarded includes salary which has been in arrears for 18 years as also compensation in lieu of reinstatement and relief should be given as provided by Sec. 89 of Income-tax Act read with Rule 21A of Income-tax Rules - Appellant indisputably is entitled to same - If any application is necessary to be made, appellant may submit same to competent authority and Commission shall assist appellant for obtaining relief - Appeal allowed.
Judgment
DESAI, J. :- Another unequal fight between a giant public sector undertaking, Oil & Natural Gas Commission (Corporation for short) and a Store Keeper which has been brought to this Court by the ultra legalist stand taken by the Corporation which lacks equanimity and smacks of victimisation.
2. The appellant was appointed as Assistant Store Keeper in April, 1962 and was posted at Dehradun. Later on when the Corporation decided to recruit Store Keeper, the appellant was selected in open competition and was appointed on December 7, 1963 as such. He was posted at Cambay, Gujarat and later on December 24, 1963 sent back to Dehradun. The office order dated February 26, 1964 recites that the appellant has been appointed as Store Keeper till further orders and the post is sanctioned for the period February 7, 1964 to February 29, 1964. In other words, a man selected in an open competition was offered the post which was to last for 22 days roughly. He was also told that his appointment was purely temporary and that other terms of service were those as set out in the letter dated December 7, 1963, one of which was that the appellant will be on probation for a period of six months from the date of the appointment and the same may be extended at the discretion of the appointing authority and that the appointment may be terminated at any time by a months notice given by either side. On January 13, 1965, the appellant was informed in writing by the Memorandum No. PF/K-44-/64-ENT that the appellant on successful completion of the probation period of six months, is continued in service on regular basis until further orders. By office order dated April 6, 1967, the appellant who was described as Store Keeper, Grade I, Mech. Engg. Branch was transferred to Cambay-Nawagam project. This transfer order was challenged by the appellant on diverse grounds in a suit filed by him. He sought an interim injunction restraining the respondents from implementing the order of transfer. Interim injunction as prayed for was granted.
3. The Oil & Natural Gas Commission Employees Mazdoor Sabha (Union for short), Dehradun submitted a charter of demands on May 15, 1967 and it was followed by a notice threatening direct action by the members of the Union. It appears that the appellant was an active worker of the Union. The usual management response emerged by a secret letter dated September 1, 1967. Shri R. P. Sharma, Chief Engineer under whom the appellant was at the relevant time working was told that the appellant is the main trouble maker and that he is being given free hand by his immediate superiors and that the Chief Engineer did not keep strict vigilance over the activities of the appellant. The. employees of the Corporation went on strike on September 12, 1967. It was called off on September 24, 1967. On September 28, 1967, the Union submitted a list of workmen to the Corporation requesting the Corporation to give them the status of protected workmen as required by Sec. 33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Appellants name appears at S. No. 2 in this letter. On December 27, 1967 the Union complained of victimisation of the active union workers including the appellant. On December 29, 1967 Office Order No. M(Engg) 1(1)/67 was issued by which the services of the appellant were terminated with immediate effect in accordance with the terms and conditions of his service. A cheque in the amount of Rs. 317/- accompanied the order being one months pay in lieu of notice. The appellant challenged in Writ Petition No. 1395/68 in the Allahabad High Court the legality and validity of the order terminating his services.
4. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that despite the order dated January 13, 1965 that on successful completion of the probation period, the appellant has been, appointed on a regular basis as Store Keeper, he was none-the-less a temporary employee of the Corporation till the date on which his services were terminated. The Hig
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.