Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 648 of 2007
PETITIONER:
Punjab State Electricity Board and Anr
RESPONDENT:
Sudesh Kumar Puri
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/02/2007
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & TARUN CHATTERJEE
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 16855 of 2005)
[With C.A. No 649 of 2007 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C)
No.16931 of 2005, C.A. No 650 of 2007 (Arising out of
S.L.P. (C) No.17018 of 2005, C.A. No 651 of 2007 (Arising
out of S.L.P. (C) No.18746 of 2005]
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
Challenge in these appeals is to the consolidated orders
passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court dismissing the four writ petitions filed by the appellant
No.1-Punjab State Electricity Board (in short the ’Board’). The
respondent in each case was engaged as Meter Reader on
contract basis by the appellant-Board. After disengagement
he made a claim stating that he had worked for a considerably
long continuous period, his services have been terminated by
the Board without following any procedure and without
payment of retrenchment compensation. Claim for
reinstatement with back wages was made. On failure of the
conciliation proceedings, matter was referred by the concerned
State Government to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as the ’Labour Court’) under
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the
’Act’). Stand of the appellant before the Labour Court was that
the applicant was engaged as private Meter Reader on contract
basis which was renewed on two occasions and at the expiry of
the contract period, the services have been dispensed with. It
was specifically averred that the applicant concerned had
never been employed by the Board and was not a workman
under the provisions of the Act. During the concerned period
a sum of Re.1/- for reading was paid as per the contract.
There was neither any monthly salary nor the claimant could
be treated as a person appointed by the Board.
The Labour Court held that the claimant had been
engaged as a Meter Reader and had worked in that capacity
for a considerably long period, his services have been
terminated without notice or payment of compensation. It was
concluded that the claimant had completed service for more
than 240 days within the preceding twelve months, and he
had been retrenched without following the procedure provided
under Section 25-F of the Act, and as such was entitled to be
reinstated. However, the back wages were restricted to 25%.
The Board filed writ petitions questioning the award in each
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
case. The claimants also filed writ petitions questioning
quantum of back wages.
The High Court referred to a decision of this Court in
Steel Authority of India Ltd. And Ors. v. National Union
Waterfront Workers and Ors. (2001(7) SCC 1) in which it was
held that the contract was a camouflage by the Board with a
view to avoid the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the writ
petitions filed by the appellant - Board were dismissed by the
impugned judgment in each case. The writ petitions filed by
the respondents were also dismissed on the ground that they
were not engaged on any fixed salary.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
without any material, the Labour Court held that the contract
was a camouflage. Absolutely no material was placed on
record to justify such a stand and/or conclusion. It is not in
dispute that there was a contract providing for payment of
Re.1/- for each meter reading. The contract was renewed
more than once. Merely because the meter reading work has
not decreased, that cannot be a basis to hold that there was a
camouflage adopted.
Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
submitted that both the Labour Court and the High Court
have recorded finding about the camouflage.
At the outset, it has to be noted that the decision in Steel
Authority’s case (supra) has absolutely no relevance so far as
the present dispute is concerned. That relates to a case of
contract labour. Present dispute is not a case of that nature.
On the contrary, it appears from the materials placed on
record that there was an agreement governing engagement.
The payment was made per meter reading at a fixed rate and
there was no regular employment ever offered to any of the
respondents. The provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act
clearly applies to the facts of the present case.
Section 2(oo)(bb) reads as follows:
"2(oo) retrenchment means the termination by
the employer of the service of a workman for
any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a
punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary
action, but does not include -
(a)\005..
(b)\005.
(bb) termination of the service of the workman
as a result of the non-renewal of the contract
of employment between the employer and the
workman concerned on its expiry or of such
contract being terminated under a stipulation
in that behalf contained therein; or"
The material on record clearly established that the
engagement of the respondent was for specific period and
conditional. It appears that on the appointment of regular
meter readers, the engagement has been dispensed with. The
contracts clearly governed the terms of engagement.
Above being the position, the orders passed by the
Labour Court and the High Court are clearly untenable and
are quashed. In two cases the concerned respondents have
been engaged again on contractual basis. It shall not be
construed that we have expressed any opinion on such
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
subsequent contractual engagement.
Appeals are allowed without any order as to costs.