The interpretation of retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act and the significance of the terms of appointment in determining the nature of termination.

( 1 ) THE petitioner an ex-employee of the kannataka State Road Transport Corporation has presented this petition questioning the legality of the order by which his services were terminated.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows: By order dated 6-1-1983 the petitioner was taken as a badli conductor in the services of the Corporation. By the impugned order dated 3-12-1984 Annexure-A his services were terminated on payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice and 15 days wages as retrenchment compensation in terms of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (the Act for short ). The petitioner questions the validity of the said order on the following grounds: mandatory conditions prescribed under Sec. 25-F namely assigning reasons for retrenchment and giving an intimation to the State Government have not been complied with. In my opinion the contention is untenable for the order of termination does not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of that expression as defined under Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial disputes Act, in view of the introduction of sub-clause (bb) into the said clause. In view of sub-clause (bb) which was introduced into the Act by Act 49/84 which came into force from 19th August 1984, the termination of services of a workman in terms of the stipulation contained in the order of appointment does not amount to retrenchment. The impugned order reads:"1) The services of Sri Shankaraiah, was utilised as a Badli Conductor under clear terms and conditions stipulated in the order cited at item 2 above as per which the undersigned being the competent Authority is empowered to discontinue from utilisation of his services as Badli conductor when his work is found not satisfactory or he is found unsuitable for the post of Badli conductor. 2) During the period of utilisation as Badli conductor the services of Sri shankaraiah, are found to be unsatisfactory and therefore he is not suitable for the post for which he is utilised as badli. 3) In the circumstances, I hereby order that the name of Sri Shankaraiah, be REMOVED from the list of Badli conductors maintained at Depot II, mysore Divn. , and thus his services be discontinued with immediate effect. 4) Further, I order that his Name is removed from the Select list of conductors referred to at item 1 above in pursuance of Regulation 10 (5) of the ksrtc Cadre and Recruitment Regulations 1982 his chance for further appointment as Condutor in terms of the said Select list is hereby forfeited. 5) Sri Shankaraiah. has put in continuous service of One year in terms of the Provisions of the Industrial dispute Act 1947 and therefore a cheque for Rs. 955-90 Ps is enclosed herewith towards wages in lieu of Notice period and compensation payable as per section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes act. "as stated in the first paragraph the petitioner was only a badli conductor and therefore his services could be dispensed with at any time if the appointing authority considered that he was not suitable for the post. In the second paragraph of the impugned order, the authority has expressly stated that it found the petitioner unsuitable for the post and therefore his services were being terminated. Therefore, the termination of the services of the petitioner being in terms of the order of appointment, it does not amount to retrenchment at all. Even so, the Divisional Controller has proceeded to give a cheque for Rs. 955-90 towards the waesinieu of notice and compensation payalle under Sec. 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act though no such amount was payable. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the name of the petitioner was included in the list of the selected candidates and therefore he could not be regarded as badli conductor. It may be, his name had been included in the list of selected candidates. But on the basis of the said inclusion he had not secured a regular appointment. Unless the petitioner had secured an appointment