The court ruled that an ad-hoc employee's termination does not require compliance with retrenchment provisions, and raising an industrial dispute after 16 years is impermissible due to res judicata.

Order :

(DINESH MEHTA, J.)

1. The State has challenged the award dated 09.03.2004 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bikaner in Labour Case No. 34/2001 (titled as Mohd. Hussain vs. Chief Account Officer).

2. The facts appertain are that the respondent no. 1 – Mohd. Hussain was appointed as a Driver on ad-hoc basis, in the office of Chief Account Officer, Command Area Development, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Bikaner on 14.03.1977.

3. Pursuant to an application for leave filed by the respondent- workman, 45 days’ leave was sanctioned by the competent authority vide order dated 03.03.1980; the respondent-workman applied for extension of leave on 15.05.1980 and left India in the month of June, 1980. His leave (without pay) was sanctioned for 60 days upto 14.07.1980. The respondent-workman again applied for extension of the leave and it was sanctioned upto 15.08.1980 by way of order dated 31.07.1980.

4. The respondent – workman yet again applied for extension of leave from time to time (upto 31.03.1982) by way of sending letters from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

5. The State did not extend his leave and since he did not return, a show cause notice was issued on 27.11.1980 followed by another notice dated 11.01.1982 calling upon the respondent- workman to appear in person and explain the reasons for his continuous absence from 16.08.1980. By way of said notice, the respondent – workman was also asked as to why his services be not terminated.

6. Even on receiving the notice aforesaid, the respondent – workman neither filed any reply nor did he join the duties. The Chief Accounts Officer, therefore, passed an order dated 24.02.1982 and terminated respondent’s services w.e.f. afternoon of 23.02.1982 while recording therein that since the respondent – workman had not joined the duties, his services cannot be said to be satisfactory.

7. It is to be noted that the respondent – workman firstly filed a review petition dated 16.03.1982, which was rejected and then, challenged the order of termination before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Service Tribunal’) by way of preferring an appeal (Appeal No. 510/1982).

8. The appeal so filed by the respondent-workman was rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.09.1985 by observing thus:-

“It is apparent that the appellant was granted leave upto 15.8.80. He reported back on 15.3.82. No leave was sanctioned for the intervene period. Merely making of the application for extent of leave does not mean that leave was granted. Leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right and such cannot be availed without prior sanction. Here in this case even notices were served on the appellant to report duty immediately as committed the appellant himself. Even then he did not join only asked for further extension. All these circumstances leave no doubt to infer for the appointing authority to the appellant’s action was haughty and insolvent or atleast unsatisfactory. Two alternatives were available with the appointing authority i.e. either to take disciplinary action or to issue order of termination simplicitor after having for the work as unsatisfactory. There is no bar for appointing authority to resort to second alternate for the appellant was employed absolutely on a temporary basis and with the condition that his services could be terminated at any time without any notice in case. As such the termination cannot be said to punitive (A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 120). The impugned order is of course dated 24.02.82 but the services have be