The court upheld the tribunal's ruling that the temporary termination did not constitute retrenchment under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. The petitioner has approached this court seeking directions, inter alia, upon the Respondent Authorities forthwith to cancel, set aside, withdraw and/or rescind the impugned Award dated 23.12.2008, and not to give effect or any further effect thereto, and praying for consequential reliefs.

2. By the impugned Award, the Tribunal observed that the termination of service of the petitioner is found to be legal. However, a lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000/- was directed to be paid to the petitioner as his termination was prior to the expiry of the terms of the contractual period.

3. The specific case of the petitioner is that the respondent no.3 is a body corporate, constituted under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, with different outstation sites. For the purpose of executing various works, 31 casual workers were employed at the River Training Wing against the regular vacancies of various categories including the category of Sweeper/Safai Mazdoor for different outstation sites including the Head office itself.

4. Out of those 31 workers, only the petitioner has been forwarded by the local Employment Exchange office and the rest were taken from outside. The Petitioner was appointed as “Temporary Sweeper” in two spells in the year 1986 for doing the sweeping work at the head office.

5. Subsequently, the petitioner, along with two others, were recommended by the office of the Regional Employment Exchange directing them to appear in the interview, scheduled to be held on 15.03.1990, for making the establishment of River Training/Wing clean and healthy. After being interviewed by the Respondent no.3, the petitioner was selected, but with an oblique motive to unfairly appoint him for 3 months only. His place of work was fixed at 20, Garden Reach Road, Calcutta-7000 043, which is the Head office of the Respondent No.3.

6. It is further contended that the Petitioner was found medically fit, but ignoring the necessity for engaging a permanent employee for the post of “sweeper” under the regular vacancy, issued only temporary employment for 3 months, with further condition stipulated therein that service is terminable on 24 hours’ notice from either side.

7. The petitioner was again appointed by another letter of appointment dated 25.09.1990 for two months with a condition for termination under the same terms and conditions as stipulated in his earlier appointment letter dated 09.04.1990.

8. The petitioner was engaged and issued similar appointment letters subsequently on 29.10.1990, 03.01.1991, 11.04.1991, 27.07.1991, 02.11.1991 and 11.02.1992 as a temporary sweeper but stipulated either two months or three months. The petitioner’s service was continuous without break since no termination letter had been issued. Break of service was shown artificially although the petitioner all along worked as a sweeper in the office of the Respondent no.3 and he was paid separate vouchers as his service could not be treated as contractual appointment. Appointment letters will go to show that the workman was appointed as a temporary Sweeper, eventhough it was against the vacancy under the River Training Wing.

9. The petitioner was supposed to work up to 11.05.1992 as per last appointment letter but, all of a sudden, without assigning any reasons, the respondent authority, vide their letter No. RT/EST/G/1106 dated 31.03.1992 term