Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S.L.Saraf
SANDEEP AGARWAL
Versus
UNIT TRUST OF INDIA
Decided On : 15 September 1998
C. M. W. R No. 19087 of 1990 and 291 of 1991
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 2(OO)(BB) - CONTRACTUAL EMPLOYMENT - TERMINATION OF SERVICES - UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICE - RETRENCHMENT - SECTIONS 25-F, 25-G, 25-H - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners were appointed on a temporary and ad hoc basis for six months in the office of the respondents. While in service, five persons were appointed on the post of Assistant knowing Typing with effect from 2-7-1990. Services of the petitioners were terminated on the expiry of the period of six months. Petitioners moved the High Court seeking relief for continuance of their service and alleging unfair labour practice and violation of Sections 25-G, 25-H and 25-T of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the petitioners were appointed on a contractual basis and on the expiry of the contract, the services of the petitioners stood terminated. The petitioners were only ad hoc and temporary employees. Their employment having been extended from month to month and such employment was accepted by the petitioners themselves, it will be contrary to and inconsistent with the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, if such cessation of service arising out of contract, would be construed as retrenchment of service, requiring the applicability of Sections 25-E 25-G and 25-H of the Act. Contractual services of the petitioners do not fall within the protection granted under Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H.
Issues: 1. Whether the termination of services of the petitioners was illegal and amounted to retrenchment under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 2. Whether the respondents indulged in unfair labour practice and violated Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the termination of services of the petitioners was not illegal and did not amount to retrenchment under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioners were appointed on a contractual basis and their services were terminated on the expiry of the contract. The petitioners had accepted the terms of the contract and were not entitled to any benefits available to regular staff. 2. The High Court held that the respondents did not indulge in unfair labour practice and did not violate Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioners had not completed 240 days of service in the previous one year and were not entitled to the protection of these provisions.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed both the writ petitions filed by the petitioners.
Two writ petitions (i) Writ Petition No. 19087 of 1990 and (ii) Writ Petition No. 291 of 1991, were filed by the petitioners against the respondents seeking relief for continuance of their ser vice. The first writ application was filed on 30-7-1990 seeking the following reliefs:
(i) issue a suitable writ, order or direction to commanding respondents and restraining the respondents in making new appointment at every 6 month to the post of Assistant knowing typing in the Branch office at Kanpur considering previous (petitioners) employees which amount to unfair labour practice under the law.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respon dents not to discontinue or deny duty to the petitioners w. e. f. 1-8-90 till the regular appoint ment and the petitioner be considered for regular appointment to the post of "assistant knowing typing" if vacancy and post continues. "
(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respon dents to pay the wages and other allowances and benefits admissible to other Regular Employees of the Assistant post. "
The Court by an order dated llth September, 1990 was pleased to pass the following order:
"issue notice.
In the meantime, it is directed that the respondents shall not discontinue or deny the duties to the petitioners with effect from 1-7-1990 for the post of Assistant knowing Typing till as regular appointment is made for the said post or till services of the petitioners are dispensed with in accordance with law. "
The said order passed by the Court virtually granted the relief of prayer (ii) of the petition.
2. There was no interim order passed on the second writ application by this Honble High Court.
3. The case in the petition was that the petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 were ap pointed temporary staff for a period of six months in the office of the respondents on and from 1-2-1990. Copy of the letter of appointment has been annexed as An-nexure-1 to the writ petition which reads as follows:
"unit TRUST OF INDIa
Gulab Bhawan,
(Rear Block) 2nd Floor,
6, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi
New Delhi.
Ref. No. Ut/nd 89-90 9-2-90 OFFICE ORDER No. UT/nd 296/89-90 The undernoted candidates have been ap pointed in the service of the Trust as Assistant knowing Typing on purely temporary and ad hoc basis with effect from 1-2-90 and posted to departments as indicated against their names.
SI. No. Name Posted to
1. Sh. Prabhat Agnihotri K. K. O.
2. Sh. Sandeepagarwal. "
3. Sh. Sunilprakashsachan "
4. Sh. Abhay Saxena "
They will be eligible for remuneration of Rs. 1883. 28 per month on pro rata basis. Their appointment will be only upto close of business on 28-2-90 and unless extended or terminated earlier will be deemed to have come to an end on the expiry of the aforesaid period. They will not be eligible for any other facility admissible to the regular staff of the trust nor will this temporary and ad hoc appointment confer on them any right to be considered for any post in the Trust. Their appointment will be subject to termina tion at any time without notice or compensation in lieu of notice. " Sd/-Illegible. "
Petitioner No. 4 was appointed on 1-3-1990 on the said post on the same terms and conditions. The aforesaid let ters of appointment were duly accepted by the petitioners. While the petitioners were in service five persons were appointed on the post of Assistant knowing Typing with effect from 2-7-1990. Services of the petitioners were terminated on the expiry of the period of six months. While in set-vice and apprehending the termination of service even before the period of six months, the petitioners moved the aforesaid first writ petition before this Honble Court on the ground that the respondents had not filled up the post by making regular appointment and the petitioners were entitled to continue in service unless regular selections of Assis tant knowing Typing are made by the respondents. Secondly, it is alleged th
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
