Temporary employees have no right to continue in service, and the civil court lacks jurisdiction to entertain claims based on the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT :

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. State of Haryana has filed the present Regular Second Appeal and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.11.1993, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Faridabad, which dismissed the appeal of the State by affirming the judgment and decree dated 03.03.1992, passed by the Court of Sub Judge 2nd Class, Faridabad, which decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent-Lakhender Prakash for declaration that verbal orders of the termination of the service of the plaintiff on 11.11.1987, were illegal, unlawful, malafide and plaintiff continues to be in service. It was also declared by the Court that the plaintiff would be entitled for back pay and allowances from the date of his termination and that he would be entitled for reinstatement into service.

2. It is apt to mention here that earlier the instant appeal was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 03.05.2000. The said judgment was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the appellant-State of Haryana and respondent-Lakhender Prakash (deceased) and the Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that neither any substantial question of law was framed nor it was considered in the impugned judgment, therefore, the case was remanded to this Court vide order dated 30.01.2003.

3. Thereafter, while admitting the appeal, following substantial questions of law were framed vide order dated 21.09.2004:

“1. Whether the plaintiff, a patwari, who was appointed on a fixed term is entitled to any notice of termination after the expiry of fixed period in his letter of appointment?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration that he continues in the service of the defendants and is entitled to all pay and allowances?”

4. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff joined the services of Haryana State as Patwari in Sub Division No. 1, PWD (B&R) w.e.f. 22.01.1986 from where he was transferred to the Land Acquisition Department under the supervisory control of Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer. According to the plaintiff, he was in continuous employment of the State with effect from 22.01.1986. His services were interrupted by showing notional breaks on account of holidays. He was shown in service from 22.01.1986 to 11.09.1986 and again from 01.12.1986 to 11.11.1987. His services were orally terminated on 11.11.1987. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration by stating the verbal order of his termination w.e.f. 11.11.1987 is illegal, unlawful and mala-fide and the plaintiff is entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. In the said suit following issues were framed by the trial Court:

1. Whether termination of the plaintiff was as per the order or not? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff has been paid full and final payment before giving him termination orders and his seniority is maintained from the date of joining and he has completed more than 240 days unbreakable and continuous service? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for service from the date of seniority and payment of pay and allowance and other departmental benefits from the date of termination? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff was terminated without giving proper notice of termination or not? OPP

5. Whether the plaintiff was engaged on short term period of work charge basis? OPD

6. Whether plaintiff was never given any appointment and thus no question of interruption in service arises as alleged by defendant? OPD

7. Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD

8. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

9. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present case? OPD

10. Relief.

5. The parties led oral as well as documentary evidence support of their case.

6. The trial Court held that oral termination of the services of the plaintiff took place on 11.11.1987 and it is illegal, ultra-vires and arbitrary. Issues No. 1 to 6 were decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issues No. 7 to 9 were also decided against the defendants. Result