IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Yunus Khan – Appellant
Versus
Haryana Roadways Through Its General Manager – Respondent
LPA 472 of 2023 & CM APPL. 29699 of 2023
Decided On : 18-07-2023
Labour Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25G, Section 25H
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a seasonal water carrier, was terminated after being appointed intermittently for short periods. The Labour Court held the termination illegal and directed reinstatement with backwages. The employer filed a writ petition, which was allowed by the Single Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The Single Judge held that non-renewal of contract does not amount to retrenchment under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act, and therefore, the Workman was not entitled to reinstatement.
Issues: Whether the termination amounted to retrenchment under the I.D. Act, and if the Workman was entitled to reinstatement and backwages.
Ratio Decidendi: The termination due to non-renewal of contract did not amount to retrenchment under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act, and the Workman was not entitled to reinstatement.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Single Judge's decision.
JUDGMENT
Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.03.2023 passed in W.P.(C.) No.8394/2004, the respondent in the writ petition has filed the present appeal.
2. Being aggrieved by an award dated 07.05.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-1, Karkardooma courts directing the reinstatement of the Appellant in service with continuity of service, along with 25% backwages, the respondent preferred W.P. (C) No.8394/2004 in this Court.
3. The appellant was appointed as Seasonal Water Carrier on daily wages with effect from 03.05.1985 to 31.05.1985. The appointment order mentions that the services of the appellant was liable to be terminated at any point of time without any prior notice.
4. The Appellant employee was engaged for a period of three months and as his services were no longer required, he was terminated with effect from 15.09.1986.
5. The Appellant was again appointed vide order dated 08.10.1986 as a Peon on daily wages for a limited period with effect from 24.09.1986 to 23.10.1986, with the same terms and conditions. He was again appointed as a Peon from 24.10.1986 to 23.11.1986, and finally his engagement came to an end on 23.12.1986.
6. The Workman was again appointed as a Water Carrier vide Order dated 14.05.1987 with effect from 01.05.1987 and his engagement came to an end on 15.05.1987.
7. The facts show that the appellant was appointed from time to time only for a period of three months with a clear stipulation in the appointment order that his services will be terminated at any point of time without prior notice. The last appointment order was issued on 07.09.1988 appointing the appellant on daily wages with effect from 16.09.1988 to 30.09.1988, and the appointment order specifically mentioned that his services can be terminated at any point of time without prior notice. The Workman in question being aggrieved by his termination with effect from 30.09.1988 raised an industrial dispute keeping in view the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as `I.D. Act'). The reference was forwarded by the appropriate Government for adjudication on 21.08.1996.
8. The Workman filed a statement of claim on 25.09.1996 before the Labour Court-I and the Respondent Management thereafter filed its written statement. The Management in support of its case examined two witnesses i.e. Sh. Rajinder Singh, Clerk and Sh. Devkinandan, Clerk.
9. The Labour Court after hearing the parties at length arrived at a conclusion that the Appellant Employee was appointed for a specific period without any continuity of old service and has not completed 240 days of service in the last preceding year. However, the Labour Court held that the termination of the Workman was illegal and unjustified and was in violation of Section 25G and 25H of the I. D. Act, and directed reinstatement of the Workman along with 25% of backwages.
10. The Employer Haryana Roadways preferred a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C.) No.8394/2004, and the Learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition.
11. The Learned Single Judge while allowing the Writ Petition held that non-renewal of contract of employment between the Employer and the Workman on its expiry does not amount to retrenchment as defined under Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the I. D. Act.
12. The Learned Single Judge has also arrived at a conclusion that since the Workman was engaged purely on contract basis for a period of three months and, therefore, it is not a case of retrenchment and the question of directing reinstatement of the workman does not arise.
13. The operative paragraphs of the order passed by the Learned Single Judge i.e. Paragraph Nos. 23 to 36 read as under:
"23.This Court has heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the documents on record and Judgments relied upon by the parties. 24.In the present case, learned Labour Court held that the termination of the Respondent/Workm
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the definition of 'retrenchment' under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act in determining the....
Termination of a workman on a contractual basis may not constitute retrenchment if the employment is of a permanent nature, and unfair labor practices may warrant compensation instead of reinstatemen....
The court upheld the illegal termination of the respondents/workmen and their entitlement to reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act, 194....
Termination of contractual employment does not equate to retrenchment under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, limiting the right to claim reinstatement.
Point of law :Labour Law - There is no proof that the workman has worked for 240 days and, therefore, it was held by the Labour Court that there is no proof that the workman was working continuously ....
Service - There is no retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act, but, it is end of service due to contractual appointment and, therefore, Section 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act woul....
The court held that the termination of the workman was illegal as it violated mandatory retrenchment procedures, entitling him to reinstatement with full back wages.
there is a breach of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act and as there is a delay of 11 years in preferring the reference, instead of granting reinstatement a lump sum amount as full and final settlement wil....
The main legal point established is that even temporary employees can be considered 'workmen' under the Industrial Disputes Act, and termination without complying with Section 25(F) may entitle the e....
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.