Back
2006 Supreme(All) 2281
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
BHARATI SAPRU
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KALYANPUR, KANPUR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 2592 Of 2000
Decided On : 08/24/2006
DINESH KAKKAR, RAJEEV MISHRA, S.N.DUBEY, S.N.VARMA, YASHWANT VERMA
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of service as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment falls within the exception of retrenchment under Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, and the violation of Section 6-Q does not warrant reinstatement.
Headnote:
Labour Dispute - Institute of Technology Act, 1961 - Section 6-N, Section 6-Q - The court discussed the application of the Institute of Technology Act, 1961, and the provisions of Section 6-N and Section 6-Q of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The court found that the appropriate government for the petitioner was the Central government, and the termination of the workman was not violative of Section 6-N as it fell within the exception of termination of service as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment. The court also held that the workman's delay in approaching the court and the non-existence of a dispute at the time of reference disentitled him to any relief. The court further found that the reinstatement of the workman was not justified as the project had come to an end, and the violation of Section 6-Q did not warrant reinstatement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an institute established under the Institute of Technology Act, 1961, terminated the services of the respondent workman, who challenged the termination after a significant delay. The Labour Court reinstated the workman, citing violations of Section 6-N and Section 6-Q of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the termination of the workman was not violative of Section 6-N, as it fell within the exception of termination of service as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment. The court also held that the workman's delay in approaching the court and the non-existence of a dispute at the time of reference disentitled him to any relief. The court further found that the reinstatement of the workman was not justified as the project had come to an end, and the violation of Section 6-Q did not warrant reinstatement.
Issues: The issues included the appropriate government for the petitioner, the application of Section 6-N and Section 6-Q of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, the delay in approaching the court, and the justification for reinstatement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Institute of Technology Act, 1961, and the provisions of Section 6-N and Section 6-Q of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The court emphasized the non-renewal of the contract of employment as the basis for the termination, the workman's delay in approaching the court, and the non-existence of a dispute at the time of reference. The court also considered the project's end as a justification for denying reinstatement and held that the violation of Section 6-Q did not warrant reinstatement.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned award of the Labour Court, reinstating the workman, was set aside. No costs were awarded.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Institute against an award of the labour Court IV, Kanpur dated July 27, 1999 published on September 6, 1999 in adjudication case No. 78 of 1998. The said award of the labour Court has reinstated the respondent No. 2 in the services of the petitioner and has also awarded to him wages for the period September 10, 1998 onwards. The order of reference reads herein below: "vernacular matter omitted. "
( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the Indian institute of Technology, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the institute) is a body corporate which is established under the provisions of the institute of Technology Act, 1961. The petitioner is thus constituted as a statutory body under the provisions of the Act aforesaid. The petitioner is empowered to provide for both instruction and research in various branches of engineering and technology, arts and science and as also to provide for the dissemination of knowledge in all such branches.
( 3 ) IN view of the statutory obligation imposed upon the Institute, it also undertakes to various research projects. The period of these projects varies from project to project.
( 4 ) IT is the contentions of the petitioner that the persons who are engaged on these projects are not direct employees of the Institute but are employees of the concerned projects, which are administered by the Dean, Research and development of the Institute. According to the petitioner, it engaged services of the respondent no. 3 on a research project No. ARDB/me/ 8908 vide appointment letter dated August 31, 1989 for a fixed period of three months on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1000/- per months as an ad hoc project worker, which is part of the record as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 was appointed in another project No. ARDB/me/8940 on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1000/- per month for a period of three months by way of appointment letter dated November 22, 1989, which is also a part of the record as Annexure 3 to the writ petition.
( 5 ) THEREAFTER, there was another ad hoc appointment on January 17, 1990, against which the respondent No. 3 applied and was issued an appointment for a period of six months on February 26, 1990 on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1200/ -. The term of the respondent No. 3 was extended upto February 16, 1991 by way of a letter dated September 3, 1990. In pursuance of the appointment made against the advertisement dated January 17, 1990, and agreement was executed between the parties on February 26, 1990, which is on record as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. The first portion of the agreement recorded thus-
"it must be understood that although the agreement is in the form of an agreement with the Director, Indian Institute of technology, Kanpur, this appointment is made by the Indian Institute of Technology, kanpur, out of Randd funds of the Institute for the sponsored research work. A person selected to fill it will be subject, in all respects, throughout his service to the orders that Institute issues from time to time in respect of staff employed out of R and D funds. "
( 6 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, clause 3 of the same agreement provided as below-
"3. The services of the party of the first part may be terminated as follows : (i) During the first year by either party without notice and without assigning any reason. "
The duration of the project was three years, according to the petitioner, as per letter dated January 2, 1989 which had been issued by the Ministry of Defence, Department of aeronautical Engineering is also a part of the record of the case as Annexure 8 to the writ petition. Para 9 of the writ petition records that funds sanctioned for the project was Rs. 3,13,200/- and the project was finally closed on December 31, 1992 and balance of Rs. 1587/- was also refunded to the sponsoring agency which was the Ministry of Defence and therefore it is the petitioners content
