Point of Law: Courts have begun to recognize the possibility of an unconscionable bargain, which could be brought about by economic duress even between the parties

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned letter dated 11.02.2021 issued by the Registrar of the University, informing her that her contract employment would end on 10.03.2021.

3. The petitioner's case is that in terms of the advertisement dated 05.08.2019, for filling up the posts of Secretary to the Registrar (Academic), the petitioner took part in the selection process. The petitioner was appointed as Secretary to the Registrar (Academic) vide appointment letter dated 18.11.2019, which contained the following terms and conditions:-

1. The appointment is purely temporary and contractual basis.

2. The consolidated salary will be Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousands) only per month.

3. Deductions from salary like Professional Tax etc. Will be as per existing rules.

4. Duty hours will be as per Universities Rules.

5. No over time allowance will be paid.

6. Office punctuality, decency and discipline must be strictly followed.

7. In the event of discontinuation of service, the employer or the employee, as the case may be, will have to serve one month's notice in advance.

Subject to the acceptance of the above terms and conditions of appointment, you are hereby directed to join within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of this letter."

4. The petitioner's case is that she was initially appointed on contract basis for a period of 11 months, which was subsequently extended for another period of 11 months vide office order dated 12.10.2020. The extension for the second period of 11 months was made w.e.f. 18.10.2020. The 15th Executive Council also accorded its ex-post-facto approval to the appointment of the petitioner vide 15th Executive Council meeting minutes dated 17.01.2021.

5. The petitioner's counsel submits that as the petitioner's contract period had been extended for another period of 11 months till September, 2021, the respondents should not have issued the impugned notice dated 11.02.2021, terminating the petitioner's contract period w.e.f. 10.03.2021. In support of his submission that the respondents have inserted an unfair term and condition in terms of Clause-7 in the contract service of the petitioner, on the basis of their superior unfair bargaining power, the petitioner's counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and another Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another, reported in (1986) 3 SCC 156. He also submits that this Court should exercise its equity jurisdiction and allow the petitioner to complete the contract period, as per the second extension granted to him, as only 7 months remained for completing the second extension period.

6. Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the respondents submits that the service of the petitioner has been terminated by invoking Clause-7 of the petitioner's appointment letter, which provides that in the event of discontinuation of service, the employer or the employee, as the case may be, will have to give one month's notice. He submits that as one month's notice had been served upon the petitioner in terms of condition No. 7 of the appointment letter, there is no infirmity with the termination of the petitioner's service. He also submits that the Executive Council of the University in its' meeting held on 08.02.2021, had given its approval for discontinuing/terminating the services of all the contractual employees, excluding the Secretary to the Comptroller, Secretary to the Deputy Registrar and the Accounts Assistant. He submits that the service of the petitioner is no longer required and the continued retention of the petitioner would only drain the financial resources of the University. He submits that conditions of service of contract employees are governed by the contract agreement as held by the Apex Court in th