Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 1323
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.
Devisahay S/o Nonda Ram Saini - Appellant
Versus
Principal Government Polotechnic Collage - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21859 of 2019
Decided On : 21-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Vigyan Shah, Priyam Agarwal, Harsh Parashar
For the Respondent: Jitendra Kumar Sharma
Employees appointed under a project have no right to continue once the project ends, and termination under such circumstances is lawful.
Headnote:
(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25-F - Termination of services - The applicant, employed as a Driver under a closed scheme, claimed illegal termination and sought reinstatement. The Labour Court found the termination violated Section 25-F but awarded compensation instead of reinstatement. The non-applicant argued that the closure of the scheme nullified the applicability of the Act. (Paras 1-3)
(B) Employment under a project - The court held that employees appointed under a project have no right to continue once the project ends, referencing precedents that support this principle. (Paras 4-6)
(C) Findings of Court - The court found the Labour Court erred in awarding compensation instead of reinstatement, as the applicant had no vested right post-scheme closure. (Paras 7-8)
(D) Issues - The main issues were the legality of termination under the Act and the applicant's entitlement to reinstatement versus compensation. (Paras 9-10) (E) Ratio Decidendi - The court ruled that the applicant's employment ended with the scheme's closure, affirming that no rights accrue post-termination under such circumstances. (Paras 11-12) (F) Result - The writ petition by the non-applicant is allowed; the award dated 13.08.2019 is quashed and set aside.
JUDGMENT :
1. Since, both these writ petitions are directed against the award dated 13.08.2019 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Alwar (for brevity “the learned Labour Court”) in LCR No. 30/2009 (CIS No. LCR 811/2014): Devisahay Saini vs. Principal, Government Polytechnic College, Alwar, they have been heard together and are being decided vide this common order.
2. For ready reference and convenience, the facts are being referred from the file of SB Civil Writ Petition No.21859/2019.
3. The respondent/applicant (for short “the applicant”) filed a statement of claim against the petitioner/non-applicant (for short “the non-applicant”) stating therein that he was appointed as Driver with the non-applicant on 11.11.1998, vide order dated 10.08.2007, his services were terminated and before that, he was being paid consolidated wages @ Rs.1,500/- per month. It was averred that he has rendered services for more than 240 days in every calendar year before the date of termination of his services but, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity “the Act of 1947”) were violated while doing so. It was, therefore, prayed that termination of his services be declared as illegal and invalid and a direction be issued for his reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.
4. The non-applicant, in its reply, submitted that services of the applicant were engaged as Driver on contract basis under the “Community Polytechnic Scheme” (for brevity “the Scheme”) floated by the Human Resources Department, Government of India (for short “the HRD”) which was closed by the HRD vide order dated 30.07.2007 whereupon, services of all the persons including the applicant working on contract/honorarium basis under the Scheme were terminated vide order dated 10.08.2007. It was further submitted that no post of Driver was sanctioned in the office of non-applicant. It was averred that since, services of the applicant came to an end with the closure of the Scheme, the provisions of the Act of 1947 had no applicability. It was, therefore, prayed that the claim petition be dismissed.
5. After recording evidence of the respective parties, the learned Labour Court partly allowed the claim petition vide its award dated 13.08.2019 whereby, while declaring the order of termination to be in violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, the applicant was held entitled for a lump sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.
6. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the non-applicant submitted that the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate that since, the services of the applicant were hired on contractual basis under a central scheme and with the closure of the Scheme, his services were terminated alongwith the similarly situated persons, the provisions of the Act of 1947 had no applicability. Relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of State of H.P. vs. Aswani Kumar & Ors., (1996) 1 Supreme Court Cases 773 and MD, U.P. Land Development Corporation & Anr. vs. Amar Singh & Ors., (2003) 5 Supreme Court Cases 388, he would submit that an employee appointed under a project/scheme has no right to continue once the project/scheme comes to an end. He further submits that the learned Labour Court has unnecessarily been swayed by the fact in its reply to the statement of claim, the non-applicant has stated that the applicant had left the services on his own which, at worst, could have been reckoned as a bonafide clerical error in view of the admitted facts as stated hereinabove. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition filed by it be allowed, the award impugned dated 13.08.2019 be quashed and set aside and the claim petition filed by the applicant be dismissed.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant, supporting the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court, submitted that despite holding that the order of termination of his services was hit by the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act o
