CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtDivision Bench(2000) 09 SC CK 0057

Delhi Public School vs Teshlal Prajapati and Another

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 12 September 2000 · Citation: AIR 2000 SC 860 : (2000) AIRSCW 4943 : (2000) AIRSCW 442 : (2000) 2 ALLMR 565 : (2000) 3 CALLT 63 : (2000) 1 JT 535 : (2000) 2 MLJ 42 : (2000) 2 OLR 104 : (2000) 91 RD 241 : (2000) 1 SCALE 415 : (2000) 2 SCC 428 : (2000) 1 SCR 566 : (2000) 1 Supreme 319

HON’BLE JUDGES
Y. K. Sabharwal, J · S. Rajendra Babu, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal No. 6038 of 1998

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 368 words

Y.K.SABHARWAL, J.-This appeal arises out of an order made by the High Court, on a challenge to an award made by the Labour Court on the ground that the term of contract of employment of the first respondent (hereinafter referred as the respondent) had expired and such as termination from service is governed by Section 2(00)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that on the expiry of the term of employment, an offer had been made to the respondent on 14/6/1988 for employment again which had been declined by him. Therefore, the respondent having lost his claim, the Labour Court ought to have rejected the same. The High Court noticed that on an earlier occasion, on the question of retrenchment the matter had come up before it in M.P. 155/92 and it was decided in that case that the exception clause in Section 2(00)(bb) would not apply in this case and as that aspect of the matter had become final it was no longer open to the appellant to reopen that issue. Therefore, as was rightly noticed by the High Court, the Labour Court was bound by the decision of the High Court on this aspect of the matter.

2.

So far as the second point is concerned, a perusal of the offer made by the appellant that it would give a fresh appointment, it is clear that the same was only on ad hoc basis and for a period of ten and a half months on a consolidated scale of rupees five hundred per month.Naturally, the respondent would decline the offer and insist upon a permanent appointment. In the circumstances, we do not think it will be appropriate for the appellant to hang on to that offer. On the other hand, the High Court noticed that the appellant had not pursued with this plea before the Labour Court and, therefore, must be deemed to have given up the same. That finding also appears to be justified in the circumstances of the case. In this background, we do not think there is any good reason to interfere with the order made by the High Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.