http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 3

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 4460 of 2005

PETITIONER:

Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd.

RESPONDENT:

Rakesh Kumar

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/12/2005

BENCH:

Arijit Pasayat & R.V. Raveendran

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

This appeal is by an employer is against the order of dismissal dated

11.9.2003 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in C.W.P. No.14355

of 2003 wherein it had challenged the award dated 2.4.2003 in Ref. No.

417/2000 made by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat.

The appellant employed the respondent on daily wages in its computer

section on 1.7.1998. According to the appellant, such appointment was made

after obtaining sanction from the appropriate authority for employing the

Respondent between the period 1.7.1998 and 31.8.1999. His services were

terminated on 31.8.1999.

Feeling aggrieved by the termination, the Respondent served a demand notice

dated 4.1.2000 for reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service,

alleging that he was illegally terminated on 29.9.1999 without any prior

notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation, in violation of Section

25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). The State

Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c)

of the Act. In its reply filed before the Labour Court, the appellant

contended that the respondent was engaged on daily wage basis on 1.5.1998,

that as he actually worked only from 1.7.1998 he was paid salary from that

date, and that he did not complete 240 days of service in a year and,

therefore, there was no need to comply with the requirements of Section 25F

of the Act.

By award dated 2.4.2003, the Labour Court allowed the claim and held that

the respondent is entitled to reinstatement to the post of Computer

Programmer with continuity of service and full back-wages from 4.1.2000.

The Labour Court, after considering the evidence, in particular, the

attendance register for the period 1.7.1998 to 31.8.1999 produced by the

appellant and the admission by appellant’s witness, held that the

respondent had worked continuously for more than 240 days in the period of

12 months prior to his termination. Consequently, it held that the

termination of service of respondent without notice, notice-pay and

retrenchment compensation was violative of Section 25-F of the Act.

The appellant challenged the said order by filing C.W.P. No.14355 of 2003

which was dismissed by the High Court at the stage of admission itself

without notice to the respondent. The said order is challenged in this

appeal. Two contentions are urged by the appellant :

(i) The termination of the service of the respondent was on account of

non-renewal of contract of employment. Having regard to the definition of

the term retrenchment in section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act, which excluded

contracts of employment for specific periods, the termination did not

amount to retrenchment and therefore, there was no obligation to comply

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 3

with the requirements of Section 25-F of the Act;

(ii) Even if the order of reinstatement is to be upheld, there is no

justification for directing reinstatement as Computer Programmer, as he was

appointed only as a Helper on daily wage basis.

Re : Contention (i) :

The contention of the appellant that the respondent was appointed for a

specific period, namely, 1.7.1998 to 31.8.1999 and the termination of his

service is on account of non-renewal of contract of employment is not borne

out either by the pleadings or the evidence. The appellant did not produce

any letter of appointment or other documents showing that the respondent

was appointed for the period from 1.7.1998 to 31.8.1999 or the termination

was on account of non-renewal of such term appointment. On the other hand,

the specific case of the appellant before the Labour Court and in the writ

petition was that there was no sanctioned p