Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2851 of 2005
PETITIONER:
Microwave Project, Kota & Anr
RESPONDENT:
Ramesh Chand
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/07/2007
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench,
dismissing the special leave filed by the appellant.
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Respondent was engaged as a casual labourer by the
Assistant Engineer of the Microwave Project Borabas for the
job of fixing of nuts and bolts in the Microwave Tower. After
completion of the work and commissioning of the Microwave
Towers, respondent was relieved from his job on 1.12.1987.
Office of the Microwave, Kota, was also abolished as there was
no need of work and in any event it was only of casual nature.
Respondent raised a dispute to the effect that there was
termination of his services which is illegal. The Labour
Ministry, Govt. of India vide order dated 30.9.1991 referred the
following dispute under Section 10(1) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ’Act’) to the Industrial
Tribunal (Central) Kota, Rajasthan.
"Whether the action of the AEN
Microwave Project, Kota & LET, Jaipur in
terminating the services of Shri Ramesh
Chand, S/o Shri Jankidas, Casual Labour
under AEN Microwave Project, Kota at
Lawatbhata w.e.f. 1.12. 1987 is justified? If
not, to what relief the concerned workman is
entitled?"
3. On behalf of the applicant it was pleaded that he had
been engaged as casual labourer on 8.12.1986 and, therefore,
he having worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar
months could not have been terminated. The appellant took
the stand that the respondent was engaged for doing a
particular work on a casual labour basis. Since the
establishment itself was closed after completion of the work
there was no scope for accepting the prayer of the respondent.
The Tribunal held that since the respondent worked for 240
days in the establishment of the present appellant, his
termination will be bad as there was violation of the
mandatory requirements of Section 25-F of the Act. Removal
from service amounted to retrenchment under Section 2 (oo) of
the Act. With these conclusions it was held that the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
respondent was entitled to be re-employed to continue to be in
service along with the 30% back wages. A writ petition was
filed before the High Court. A learned Single Judge by a very
cryptic order held that the Labour Court has held that there
was violation of the requirements of Section 25-F of the Act
and, therefore, there was no legality. The Division Bench came
to the similar conclusions.
4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that there is no dispute that the engagement was
for a specific project. The Tribunal has categorically noted
about these aspects but granted relief to the respondent. It
was noted that the office of the present appellant was under
the Jaipur Division and the new Kota Division has been
created after bifurcation of the Division.
5. In response, learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that it should be accepted that the project has been
completed, yet in view of the fact that there was bifurcation,
the Tribunal was justified in its conclusion.
6. We find that the Tribunal failed to consider the issues in
proper perspective. The effect of Section 2(oo)(bb) has been
completely lost sight of. There was no dispute that the
employment was for a specific project. There was no
discussion of the various materials produced before the
Tribunal. The orders of the High Court proceeded on the basis
that because there was non-compliance with the requirements
of Section 25-F, the Award was justified. The question of
the applicability of Section 25-F of the Act would be
dependent upon the basic question relating to applicability
of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. That aspect has been lost
sight of. We, therefore, think it appropriate to remit the matter
to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. Parties will be
permitted to place material in support of their respective
stand. As the matter is pending since long, we request the
Tribunal to dispose of the matter within a period of four
months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.
7. Appeal is allowed with no orders as to costs.