Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 Supreme(Raj) 1151

SUNIL AMBWANI, PRAKASH GUPTA
ITI Limited through its Sultana Ram Chairman and Managing Director, Bangalore – Appellant
Versus
Sultana Ram – Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellants:Muktesh Maheshwari, Advocate.
For the Respondent:D.S. Rajvi, Advocate.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The ITI engaged workers on a project with temporary/ coterminous service; project ended on 31.03.1992 and employees were dispensed with, with due payments (PF, gratuity, leave encashment, notice pay) [17000410750004][17000410750013] - Industrial Tribunal and High Court rulings directing continuation/reinstatement with back wages were quashed; court held such employees cannot seek regularisation where posts are not created or sanctioned and where employment is tied to a specific project/scheme [17000410750016][17000410750020][17000410750027] - Supreme Court/Mohd. Abdul Kadir and Uma Devi principles applied: ad hoc/temporary appointments coterminous with a scheme/project do not entitle regularisation if no permanent posts exist; regularisation not warranted absent availability of posts [17000410750023] (!) (!) (!) - The judgments set aside the Single Judge and Industrial Tribunal awards, holding no reinstatement/continuity in service with back wages where the employment was project-based; no order as to costs; appeals allowed [17000410750028]

How to determine whether employees engaged for a specific project can be regularised after project completion?

What is the legality of reinstatement or continuation in service when the employment was coterminous with a temporary project?

What are the proper legal consequences for termination of project-based employees and the applicability of Sections 25F, 25N, and 25FFF(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act?

JUDGMENT

1. - We have heard Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. D.S. Rajvi, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Both the Special Appeals raise similar questions of law and are, thus, decided by a common judgment.

3. The Indian Telephone Industries (for short, "the ITI") invited names from the Employment Exchange for engagement on the post of Technician and LDC (Accounts Clerk) in the year 1987. Ashok Kumar Sharma, respondent in Writ Petition No. 3283/2001 was qualified and was called for interview on 12.11.1987. He was appointed on 28.11.1987. His services were extended from 31.12.1990 and, thereafter, he continued on the post upto 31.3.1992, when his services were dispensed-with on the ground that the work on the project was complete. He filed a Writ Petition No.2225/1992 "Ashok Kumar v. Union of India", which was dismissed on 12.3.1996 on the ground of alternative remedy. He made an application to the State Government on which a reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner to decide the labour dispute. The Reference No.56/1998 was made to decide as to whether the termination order dated 31.3.1992 was valid and legal?

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(Raj) 1151

SUNIL AMBWANI, PRAKASH GUPTAITI Limited through its Sultana Ram Chairman and Managing Director, Bangalore – AppellantVersusSultana Ram – Respondent

How to determine whether employees engaged for a specific project can be regularised after project completion?

What is the legality of reinstatement or continuation in service when the employment was coterminous with a temporary project?

What are the proper legal consequences for termination of project-based employees and the applicability of Sections 25F, 25N, and 25FFF(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act?

Cases Referred (11)

SUNIL AMBWANI, PRAKASH GUPTA
ITI Limited through its Sultana Ram Chairman and Managing Director, Bangalore – Appellant
Versus
Sultana Ram – Respondent