Termination of a contractual employee's service upon contract expiry does not constitute retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, provided the termination follows stipulated contractual terms.

JUDGMENT :

(M. K. THAKKER, J.)

(1) This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award passed by the learned labour Court at Godhra dated 07.10.2024 in Reference (T) No.116 of 2024, whereby the Reference filed by the present petitioner came to be rejected.

(2) It is the case of the present petitioner that the petitioner was appointed by respondent No.1 on 11.01.2004 for a period of one year under the terms that the appointment would be on a contract basis, with a salary of Rs.1,000/- per month. It was further stipulated that continuation after the end of the tenure would be subject to mutual agreement and that the appointment would be governed by the rules and regulations laid down by the Indian Red Cross Society.

(2.1) It is further the case of the petitioner that he continued in service after completing the initial one-year term upto 31.03.2010. On 01.04.2010, a fresh appointment letter was issued, specifying a contractual period of 11 months. Similar appointment letters were issued on 01.04.2011, 01.04.2012, and 01.04.2013. It is the case of the petitioner that by an application dated 05.03.2014, he and other co-employees requested respondent No.1 to increase camp allowances and submitted a separate application for the grant of GPF benefits, along with a request for the renewal and extension of their service contracts. However, by an order dated 21.03.2014, the respondent suspended the petitioner’s service and issued a show cause notice, alleging misconduct. The notice stated that multiple complaints had been received against the petitioner and that, despite being previously instructed to remain available on call for emergency services, he failed to respond to calls and did not meet the expected work standards.

(2.2) The petitioner has filed the reply on 24.03.2014 denying all the contentions made in the suspension order. It is the case of the petitioner that with a view to make the scapegoat, the application was obtained from co-employees about misbehavior with the other lady co-employee and issuing threats for filing the complaint under the Atrocities Act. One more application has been received by the respondent from the other co-employee stating that the petitioner was pressurizing the co-employees to go on the strike. It is the case of the petitioner that without conducting the departmental inquiry, directly the report was submitted on 27.03.2015 and has put an end to the service contract of the petitioner on completion of the period of the contract i.e. on 31.03.2014. Challenging the above termination of the service contract, the Reference was filed before the learned labour Court, Godhra which registered as Reference (T) No.116 of 2014 which came to be rejected by the learned labour Court and the same is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

(3) Heard the learned advocate Mr.Jay Koshti for the petitioner.

(3.1)Learned advocate Mr.Koshti submits that though the petitioner has worked continuously as a contractual employee from 2004 to 2014, the service contract was put an end to in the year 2014 and the petitioner was disengaged by the respondent. Learned advocate Mr.Koshti submits that the termination is based on alleged misconduct, which was not proved by initiating the departmental inquiry, however, directly the report was submitted by the inquiry officer in breach of principle of natural justice.

(3.2)Learned advocate Mr.Koshti submits that on obtaining false and frivolous complaint from the other workman, the conclusion was made by the inquiry officer with regard to proving of charge that too also without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner. Learned advocate Mr.Koshti submits that the learned labour Court has committed an error in concluding that termination of service is not covered within the ambit of sections 2(oo) and 2(bb) of the I.D.Act and therefore, the impugned award deserves to be set aside and the relief of reinstate