1. Temporary appointment and termination of a delivery agent — Challenge to termination based on Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 1285
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G. B. Pattanaik, S. C. Agarwal
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER, APPELLANTS
Versus
KAMLESH KUMAR BHARTI, RESPONDENT.
Civil Appeal No. 6682 of 1997 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13270 of 1996.),
decided on September 26, 1997.
The interpretation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and its applicability to the termination of services.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act - Termination of Services - Interpretation of Section 25-F
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was appointed as a temporary Extra-Departmental Delivery Agent and was later relieved of the post. He filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which ruled in his favor based on the protection of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Finding of the Court:
The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's judgment, and dismissed the respondent's petition based on the interpretation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Issues: Interpretation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on a previous judgment to establish that the post office is not considered an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and therefore, the provisions of Section 25-F could not be invoked to set aside the termination of the respondent's services.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's judgment was set aside, and the respondent's petition was dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the termination of services was illegal for non-compliance with Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (Para 3 )
3. The court observed that a post office does not constitute an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (Para 4 )
4. Post office is not an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; thus, Section 25-F is inapplicable. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed — Impugned judgment set aside — Original application dismissed. (Para 5 )
6. Is a post office considered an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
No, a post office is not an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (Para 4 )
7. Can the protections of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 be invoked for the termination of a post office employee?
No, because a post office is not an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the provisions of Section 25-F cannot be invoked to set aside the termination of services. (Para 4 )
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Special leave granted.
3. The respondent was appointed temporarily as Extra-Departmental Delivery Agent in Ghazipur on 1-1-1993. He was relieved of the said post on 19-2-1994. He filed a petition (OA No. 404 of 1994) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") which has been allowed by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 3-10-1995. The Tribunal has held that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days and he was entitled to the protection of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and since the said provisions were not complied with, the termination of the services of the respondent was illegal.
4. The learned Additional Solicitor General has invited our attention to the judgment of this Court in Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post v. Theyyam Joseph ((1996) 8 SCC 489 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1012) wherein this Court has laid down that post office is not "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In view of the said decision of this Court the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act could not be invoked to set aside the termination of the services of the respondent.
5. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal dated 31-10-1995 is set aside and OA No. 404 of 1994 filed by the respondent is dismissed.
6. In pursuance of our order dated 9-7-1996 the appellants have deposited a sum of Rs. 3000 towards the cost of the respondent in this Court. The learned counsel for the respondent will be entitled to withdraw the said amount.
