Km. Ranjana Barthwal vs Director, Wild Life Institute of India

Rudresh Kumar

By order No. 42012/32/2000/IR (DU) dated 30.05.2000, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Section 2(A) of I.D. Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between Km. Ranjana Barthwal D/ o T.R. Barthwal, Dehradun and Director, Wild Life Institute of India, Chandrabani, Dehradun for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is as under:

Whether The Action of The Management of Wild Life Institute, Dehradun In Terminating The Services of KM. Ranjana Barthwal, EX-Contingent LDC, w.e.f. 11.5.95 IS Just, Fair and Legal? If Not, TO What Relief The Workman is Entitled and From What Date ?

The workman, Km. Ranjana Barthwal, seeks invalidation of her retrenchment from the post of Lower Division Clerk on plea of having worked continuously from 11.04.94 to 10.05.95 i.e. for 387 days and her services dispensed with without any notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation as provided u/s 25F of the I.D. Act. Admittedly, by office Order No. A/2-1/90-WII dated 11.4.94, she was engaged on a contract basis for one year on consolidated amount of Rs. 2000/- p.m. only. The period of contract with same terms and conditions was extended by letter 1.5.95, till 10.05.95. One of the stipulations of this contractual employment mention that on expiry of one year period or at end of the extended period, her engagement would automatically come to end. She was given fresh appointment w.e.f. 11.7.95 on consolidated emolument of Rs. 1800/- p.m. upto 22.8.95 but was terminated earlier. However, this termination is not covered by the term of reference.

The management also admitted contractual engagement by letter dated 11.4.94 and extension by letter dated 1.05.95. However, the management denies retrenchment and submits automatic cessation of work on expiry of contract of service.

The reference order requires adjudication on action of the Wild Life Institute, Dehradun in terminating the services of Km. Ranjana Barthwal ex-contingent LDC w.e.f. 11.5.95, whether just fair and legal ? This is apparent from the order of the reference that this Tribunal is not required to work into order of fresh appointment dated 11.7.95 and termination on 17.8.95. As such, the tribunal is required to confine consideration on alleged termination w.e.f. 11.5.95.

Two central issues, firstly: whether on expiry of contractual period, the workman was entitled to employment and further her cessation as such, from duties is retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act. and secondly: whether the Wild Life Institute of India is an "Industry" within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act ?

There is no denial that the workman continuously worked since 10.04.95 to 10.05.95 on consolidated amount of Rs. 2000/- p.m. The appointment was contractual as is evident by the letter of appointment and extension letter. Unlike a daily wager, the workman was engaged on contract basis for the fixed term and her discontinuity from services, on expiry of the contract of employment was automatic as per stipulation of the contract. The relationship as master and servant ceased automatically and the workman was not entitled to continue further in service. This contractual period was based depending on quantum of available work in a particular project extension was granted for a brief period to ensure completion of work. Such cessation of employment is not retrenchment u/s 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act.

Accordingly, the action of the management treating the workman discontinued from service w.e.f. 11.5.95 can not be said to be breach of contract and further more, such cessation is not retrenchment. The workman has no right to claim continuity in the services after expiry of the contract.

As regard the second point that Wild Life Institute of India is not an "industry" as defined u/s 2(j) of the I.D. Act, there is no material to adjudicate this issue finally. In the present case, there is no need to deliberate on this issue.

Accordingly, the award is that the action of the management in treating Km. Ranjana Barthwal out of employment w.e.f. 11.5.95 as ex-contingency LDC was just fair and legal. The workman is not entitled to any relief.