Important pointIf termination of service of workman in view of exception contained in clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of Industrial Disputes Act was not a retrenchment, question of applicability of Chapter VA of the Act would not arise.

Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947—Sections 2(oo)(bb), 25G and 25-H—Termination of service—Respondent was appointed on contractual basis as Arrival Record Clerk during paddy seasons for various periods between October, 1997 till December, 1998—On termination of his service he raised industrial dispute contending that he worked for 356 days—Appellant contended that respondent worked for 208 days—Labour Court held termination in violation of Section 25-G and management was guilty of unfair trade policy—High Court dismissed writ—Appeal—Appointments of respondent were made on contract basis—Respondent was re-employed after termination of his service on contract basis after a consideration period—If termination of service in view of exception u/s 2(oo)(bb) of the Act was not a retrenchment, Chapter VA of the Act did not apply—Dispensing with of engagement of respondent could not be said to be unwarranted in law—Impugned judgment could not be sustained.
       Held : It is not in dispute that the appellant is a statutory body constituted under the Punjab and Haryana Agriculture Produce Marketing Board Act. In terms of the provisions of the said Act, indisputably, regulations are framed by the Board laying down terms and conditions of services of the employees working in the Market Committees. A bare perusal of the offer of appointment clearly goes to show that the appointments were made on contract basis. It was not a case where a workman was continuously appointed with artificial gap of 1 day only. Indisputably, the respondent had been re-employed after termination of his services on contract basis after a consideration period(s). (Para 9)
       The question as to whether Chapter VA of the Act will apply or not would dependent on the issue as to whether an order of retrenchment comes within the purview of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act or not. If the termination of service in view of the exception contained in clauses (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act is not a ‘retrenchment’, the question of applicability of Chapter VA thereof would not arise. (Para 11)
       In view of the aforementioned definitions of the expressions ‘status’ and ‘privilege’ it must be held that such ‘status’ and ‘privilege’ must emanate from a statute. If legal right has been derived by the respondent herein to continue in service in terms of the provisions of the Act under which he is governed, then only, the question of depriving him of any status or privilege would arise. Furthermore, it is not a case where the respondent had worked for years. He has only worked, on his own showing, for 356 days whereas according to the appellant he has worked only for 208 days. Therefore, Fifth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has no application in the instant case. In view of the above, the dispensing with of the engagement of the respondent cannot be said to be unwarranted in law. (Para 20)

Judgment

S.B. Sinha, J.—Leave granted.

2. The respondent was appointed on contractual basis as an Arrival Record Clerk. Such appointments were made during paddy seasons. The period of first appointment was from 17.10.1997 to 15.1.1998. Again in the next wheat season he worked under the appellant from 4.4.1998 to 1.7.1998. He was again appointed vide order dated 11.9.1998 and worked from 16.9.1998 till 13.12.1998. The terms and conditions of service as contained in the order dated 11.9.1998 in regard to the appellant are as under :

"1. That the appointment will be on consolidated wages at he rate of Rs. 1536/- P.M. No other allowances will be admissible.

2. The period of engagement will be 89 days.

3. Services can be terminated/dispensed at any time without assigning any notice and reason and this will not confer any right for his/her being considered for regular appointment.

4. He/she will not entitle to any leave except one day casual leave for each complete month.

5. The unavailed casual leave shall lapse on the last day of calendar year.

6. His/her appointment on contract basis shall not confer upon any right for regularization of appointment.

7. He will be bound by office secrecy act and shall be required to maintain decorum as is expected under conduct rules of the Board.

8. His retention on contract basis shall firm the performance in the job assigned to him. He will have to join the duty within 100 days from the date of issue of this order failing which the engagement will stand cancelled automatically."

3. After termination of his services, the appellant raised an industrial dispute. The Government of Haryana made a reference thereof purported to be in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 10(1)(c) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat. It was registered as Reference No. 383 of 2000. Both parties filed their respective written statements before the Labour Court.

4. One of the disputes related to the total number of days of work completed by the workman in twelve months prior to the date of termination of his services. The appellant contended that the respondent had worked for 208 days whereas the contention of workman was that he had worked for 356 days.

5. The Labour Court inter alia held that the termination of services of the workman was in violation of the provision of Section 25-G of the Act and the management took recourse to unfair labour policy.

6. A writ petition filed by the appellant herein before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana being Civil Writ Petition No. 14737 of 2003 was dismissed by a Division Bench summarily. The appellant is, thus, before us.

7. Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant raised a short question in support of this appeal. It was contended that the Labour Court as well as the High Court committed a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as they failed to take into consideration the definition of retrenchment as contained in Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. It was urged that the High Court failed to take into consideration that Chapter VA of the Industrial Disputes Act and consequently the Fifth Schedule appended to this Act would have no application herein. Mr. Jain submitted that Labour Court committed an illegality in coming to the conclusion that workmen junior to the respondent had been retained in service as those employees were surplus employees and were retained under the directions of the State Government.

8. Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would contend that in view of the fact that the workmen junior to the respondent were retained in service the provisions of Section 25-G besides 25-H of the Act had clearly been breached. It was submitted that the action on the part of the appellant amounts to unfair labour practice and in this behalf our attention has been drawn to clauses (b) and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 173

Important pointIf termination of service of workman in view of exception contained in clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of Industrial Disputes Act was not a retrenchment, question of applicability of Chapter VA of the Act would not arise.

Cases Referred (6)