Termination of service on closure of a project is not 'retrenchment' within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but is 'deemed retrenchment' under Section 25FFF. In case of 'deemed retrenchment' under Section 25FFF, the provisions of Section 25F regarding notice, pay in lieu thereof, and compensation are not conditions precedent for valid termination, but the employer is liable to make such payments.

S.K. Chawla, J.

1. The services of a Laboratory Attendant appointed to a Project were terminated upon cessation of work of that project. He has now filed the present writ petition challenging his termination.

2. The petitioner Pramod Kumar Tiwari was appointed on a temporary post of Laboratory Attendant by Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. (respondent herein) on Indo-British Fertilizer Education Project; vide order dated September 5, 1984 (Annexure P-3). The funds for this project were provided to Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited by British Government under Education Programme for Agricultural Development. The appointment order (Annexure P-3) stipulated inter alia that the appointee would be on probation for a period of 6 months, which would be extendable at the discretion of the management. The petitioner on completion of probation period, was confirmed on his post by order dated July 10, 1989 (Annexure P-5) with effect from April 8, 1985. It was expressly stated in the confirmation order that petitioner's confirmation did not affect the purely temporary nature of his post. The exact wording contained in the confirmation order may be reproduced : "His confirmation does not affect the purely temporary nature of post but only means that his services are liable to be terminated by one month's notice on either side or payment in lieu thereof. The petitioner continued in service, when by memorandum dated March 18, 1993 (Annexure P-7), his services were terminated with effect from March 31, 1993 on the alleged expiry of the "tenure" of Indo-British Fertilizer Education Project. The petitioner represented against his termination. The representation was accepted and the termination order (Annexure P-7) was cancelled vide order dated April 8, 1993 (Annexure P-9). It was stated in that order that the petitioner would continue to be on the roll of Indo-British Fertilizer Education Project till further order. The petitioner on April 19, 1993 made a representation (Annexure P-8) to Hindustan, Fertilizer Corporation Limited, stating that 244 employees of Indo- German Fertilizer Education Project (IGFEP) on closure of that project in 1985 were absorbed in FPARD/Marketing Division of Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited and praying similar absorption in his favour. The representation did not apparently find favour with the management of the respondent and on August 24, 1993 a termination order was again given (Annexure P-1), stating that upon cessation of the work of Indo-British Fertilizer Education Project (IBEEP), the services of the petitioner, being on purely temporary basis, were no longer required and were being terminated with immediate effect. It was further stated that the petitioner was entitled to one month's salary in lieu of notice period, which he could collect from the Regional Office, Bhopal, M.P. It is this termination order (Annexure P-1) which is under challenge in this writ petition.

3. The petitioner's case is that he had completed more than 8 years of service. He had also been earlier confirmed. The impugned termination (Annexure P-1) without holding any kind of inquiry against him, was illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Reliance was placed on the decision in Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress, (1991-I-LLJ-395), laying down that order of termination of the service of a permanent employee by simply issuing a month's notice or pay in lieu thereof under Regulation 9(b) of Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952, without recording any reason in the order of termination and without giving any hearing to the employee is unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious and void. Secondly, the termination of the petitioner's service was, at any rate, "retrenchment" within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since pre-requisites given in Section 25F ibid were not fulfilled, the retrenchment was invalid and inoperative. Relian