Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 569
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
K.M. Thaker, J.
Panchal Dilip Dahyalal - Appellant
Vs.
Gujarat State Handicraft Development Corpn. Ltd. - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 11761 of 2006
Decided On : 18-03-2016
For the Appellant :Tejas P. Satta, Advocate.
For the Respondents:H.S. Munshaw, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the narrow interpretation of clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to protect the rights of workmen and prevent misuse by employers in engaging employees for specific and limited duration work.
Headnote:
Labour Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(oo) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which defines 'retrenchment' and specifically examined clause (bb) of the section. The court interpreted the clause narrowly to protect the rights of the workmen and prevent misuse by employers. It emphasized the need for genuine and bona fide contracts for specific and limited duration work, and the requirement for contracts to be co-terminus with the project or scheme. The court also highlighted the obligation of the employer to inform the employee about the limited tenure of employment. The judgment focused on establishing the genuineness of the contract and the absence of engagement of another person for the same work after the expiry of the contract.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the award of the Labour Court, which rejected the reference case and relief prayed for by the petitioner. The petitioner was engaged under a specific contract for a limited period, and his service automatically terminated on the expiry of the contract. The petitioner sought reinstatement and other benefits, claiming a breach of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was engaged under a genuine and bona fide contract for a specific and limited duration work, and his service termination fell within the purview of clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of the Act. The court held that there was no breach of section 25F, and the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted.
Issues: The issues revolved around the genuineness of the contract, the interpretation of section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the applicability of section 25F in the petitioner's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of section 2(oo) of the Act, emphasizing the need for genuine and bona fide contracts for specific and limited duration work, and the absence of engagement of another person for the same work after the expiry of the contract.
Final Decision: The petition was rejected, and the court upheld the decision of the Labour Court, concluding that there was no breach of section 25F and the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted.
K.M. Thaker, J.
1. This petition is listed at Sr. No. 4 in Today's Cause List.
2. When the petition was called out and taken up for hearing in first sitting/session, learned advocate for the petitioner was not present. On his behalf, request was made to Passover the hearing of the petition. Request was granted. Even in second sitting/sessions, when the petitioner is called out and taken up for hearing, again learned advocate for the petitioner is not. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent - Gujarat State Handicraft Development Corporation Limited ('the respondent' for short) is present.
3. The petition is pending since 2006. In this view of the matter, the Court considered it appropriate to decide the petition on merits after considering the material on record, instead of adjourning the hearing or dismissing the petition on ground of non-prosecution.
4. The petitioner has challenged award dated 18.1.2005 passed by the learned Labour Court at Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 1587 of 1993, whereby the learned Labour Court dismissed the reference case and rejected the relief prayed for by the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the award rejecting the reference, the petitioner has taken out present petition.
5. On examination of the memo of petition and the impugned award, it has emerged that present petitioner felt aggrieved by automatic termination from the employment w.e.f. 24.5.1992 in view of the terms and conditions of the contract/agreement under which he was engaged by present respondent.
5.1. Feeling aggrieved by automatic termination of his engagement - service, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute somewhere in 1997, i.e. after about 5 years, which came to be referred for adjudication to the learned Labour Court at Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 1587 of 1993.
5.2. During the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, the petitioner filed his statement of claim, wherein he alleged that he was employed by the respondent as Clerk w.e.f. 15.2.1990 and he continued as such until 24.5.1992 with salary of Rs. 1,000/- per month. He also alleged that despite the fact that during the period from 15.2.1990 till 24.5.1992, he worked sincerely his service was terminated w.e.f. 24.5.1992 without following procedure prescribed by law for retrenchment. With such allegation, in the statement of claim, the petitioner prayed that the respondent may be directed to reinstate him with consequential benefits.
6. The said reference was opposed by present respondent. The respondent herein filed its written statement at Exh. 6, wherein it claimed that the petitioner was engaged temporarily on fixed tenure basis for period of two years and for specified work and for such specific purpose an agreement/contract between the petitioner and the respondent was entered into and executed. According to the specific and express provisions under the said agreement the petitioner was employed w.e.f. 15.2.1990 till 24.5.1992 and by virtue of the provisions under the agreement/contract, the said engagement would automatically come to an end w.e.f. 24.5.1992. It was also claimed that in view of such express provision and specific agreement, the engagement of the petitioner would fall within purview of clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short). It was also claimed that in view of the express provision and specific contract, the petitioner was aware from the first day that he was engaged temporarily and only for fixed tenure upto 24.5.1992 and that he had consciously accepted the said condition and thereafter entered into the agreement and that, therefore, his claim for reinstatement and other benefits was not justified. It was also claimed that specific contract was in operation w.e.f. May 1990 to May 1992 and on expiry of the period of contract, the engagement automatically came to an end and therefore also the claim of the petitioner was unjustified.
6.1. Subsequently, the respondent placed rele
