SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(P&H) 2442

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Smt.Devjnder Kaur
Versus
Child Welfare Council, Punjab
Civil Writ Petition No. 4041 of 1999,
Decided On : AUGUST 26, 2010

A person working on honorarium is not an employee and is only rendering service for which payment is made as a token of gratitude.

Headnote:

Honorarium - Employment Termination - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Rajendra Singh v. District Inspector of Schools Fatehpar,1 2001(3) S.C.T. 12 - State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi and others, 2 (2006)1 S.C.C. 667: (2002-1)130 PLR 502 - State of Haryana Through Director Women and Child Development Department, Haryana, Chandigarh v. Smt.Kanta Devi, 3 (2002-1)130 PLR 502 - Ku. Renuka S. Dhoke v. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Prishad, Yavatmal and others, 4 2008(1) S.L.R. 627 - Darshana Devi v. State of Haryana and others, 5 (2009-1)153 P.L.R. 174 - State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi, 6 (2007)11 S.C.C. 681

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, appointed as Balsewika at a Creche, was terminated from service due to closure of the Creche. The petitioner challenged the termination under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that a person working on honorarium is not an employee and is only rendering service for which payment is made as a token of gratitude. The termination was not stigmatic in nature and was due to the closure of the Creche as a result of financial constraint, hence no enquiry was required to be held and there was no need to follow the principles of natural justice.

Issues: 1. Whether a person engaged on honorarium can be termed as an employee and assail his/her removal? 2. Whether the procedure adopted by the respondents in dispensing with the services of the petitioner is just and appropriate or not?

Ratio Decidendi: A person working on honorarium is not an employee and is only rendering service for which payment is made as a token of gratitude. The termination was not stigmatic in nature and was due to the closure of the Creche as a result of financial constraint, hence no enquiry was required to be held and there was no need to follow the principles of natural justice.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.

Judgment

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.

1. Petitioner Smt. Devinder Kaur was appointed as Balsewika to run a Creche by the Child Welfare Council working under the Indian Red Cross, Society, Bathinda in the pay scale of Rs.950-25-1200- 30-1560-40-1800/- alongwith permissible allowances on 19.9.1994. Initially, salary of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.2,824/- p.m. The order of appointment has been annexed as Annexure P1. On 18.1.1994, she was terminated from service on the ground that her services were no longer required as the Child Welfare Council, Punjab (hereinafter to be referred as, the Council) had decided to close the Creche. Petitioner made a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . The termination of the petitioner was upheld by the Labour Court. An award to this effect was pronounced on 18.12.1997. However, the petitioner was held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.22,592/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of termination. Later, the Council made certain efforts to adjust the petitioner vide office order dated 30.12.1996, Annexure P2. In this order, it was specifically stated that under the schematic pattern of Indian Council of Child Welfare, New Delhi and adopted by the Council, the petitioner may work as a Balsewika at Rs.525/- p.m. payable as honorarium. However, on 22.2.1999 vide Annexure P3, due to closure of this Creche of the Council, also the honorary services rendered by the petitioner as Balsewika (Senior Helper) were dispensed with. The concluding portion of the office order, Annexure P3, reads as under:-

"A cheque for Rs.525-00 equal to her one months salary (honorarium) in lieu of notice period is attached."

The above-said order, Annexure P3, passed by the President, Red Cross Society, Bathinda is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2 In the reply filed, a preliminary objection has been raised that District Child Welfare Council is not amenable to writ jurisdiction and cannot be termed as State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is admitted that services of the petitioner were dispensed with and one month honorarium was paid in advance as there was financial crunch in the Council which led to closure of the Creche.

3. The present writ petition raises the following two questions for consideration of this Court:-

(a) Whether a person who is engaged on honorarium can be termed as an employee and assail his/her removal?

(b) Whether the procedure adopted by the respondents in dispensing with the services of the petitioner is just and appropriate or not?

4. "Honorarium" according to Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary means payment made for professional services. Merriam- Websters Collegiate Dictionary defines honorarium - a payment for a service. Collins English Dictionary for Advanced Learners describes honorarium as a fee that someone receives for doing something which is not a normal part of their job. From the ordinary dictionary meaning, it is apparent that honorarium is not paid for a regular job but is a token, paid as gratitude for rendering some service. Therefore, in strict words, there is no relationship of employer and employee. It does not involve any salary.

5. In Rajendra Singh v. District Inspector of Schools Fatehpar,1 2001(3) S.C.T. 12, a part time teacher was equated with an honorary teacher. Therefore, at best honorary worker can be considered as a part time worker. Honble Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi and others, 2 (2006)1 S.C.C. 667: (2002-1)130 PLR 502 has held that part time employees are not covered within the fold of definition of Employee.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on State of Haryana Through Director Women and Child Development Department, Haryana, Chandigarh v. Smt.Kanta Devi, 3 (2002-1)130 PLR 502 to contend that where a person working on honorarium due to misconduct is terminated, an enquiry ought to be conducted and principles of natural justice should be followed. To the similar effect is a judg







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top