Nemi Chand and Others vs Municipal Board and Others

Govind Mathur, J.—To challenge the award dated 25.5.2005, passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur, this petition for writ is preferred.

Under a notification dated 31.5.2000, the appropriate government referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication to the Labour Court in following terms:

D;k Jfedx.k loZ Jh �1� Jh usehpUn@rstkjke �2� Jh iqj[kkjke@ckcqyky �3� Jh dkukjke@Hkkeyjke �4� Jh prqHkZqt@ckcwyky �5� Jh cnzhyky@iapkjke �6� Jhefr dkark@nqykjke �7� Jh izdk''kpUnz@t;jke �8� Jherh djek@lqjs''kpanz �9� Jherh lk;jk@gfjHktu �10� Jherh fdj.k@jktqjke �11� Jh dSyk''k@vkseizdk''k �12� ukSjrujke@gMwekujkl �13� Jh ykykjke@rkEcwje �14� Jherh ek[kunsoh@Jh jfoanz �15� Jh nqxkZjke@Jh jkenhu �16� Jh nk�yky@ckcwyky �17� pj.kjke@gjnhujke �18� Jh jkesJoj@:ikjke �19� Jh vkseizdk''k@ekrknhu �20� Jh dkukjke@Hkaojyky �21� Jh dY;k.kjke@Jh ''kaHkwjke �22� Jherh eqUuh@Jh lqjs''k ,oa �23� Jherh eatw ifRu Jh cq)kjke gky fuoklh;ku ihikM flVh tks/kiqj dks mlds fu;kstd vizkFkhZ �1� v/;{k uxjikfydk ihikM flVh ,oa �2� vf/k''kk"kh vf/kdkjh] uxjikfydk e.My ihikM flVh }kjk vkns''k fnukad 24-10-98 ls lsoki`Fkd djuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\\ ;fn ugh rks Jfedx.k fdl jkgr dks ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS \\

By the award impugned dated 25.5.2005 the Labour Court held the termination of the workmen valid on the count that the termination of the workmen was not retrenchment as their services came to an end on completion of the term prescribed in the order of appointment itself.

The noticeable facts of the case are that the appointment was accorded to the petitioners after holding selection proceedings as per the procedure prescribed under the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate & Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1963") in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940. The appointment given was for a period of one year and that was to reach at an end after completion of the term aforesaid. On 24.10.1998 the employer served notices upon the workmen as per the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of1947") for effecting their retrenchment w.e.f. 26.11.1998 i.e. on completion of one year''s service from the date of appointment. Being aggrieved by the same, the industrial dispute was raised by the workmen and that was referred for its adjudication to the Labour Court.

While assailing validity of the award impugned, the contention of counsel for the petitioners is that the appointments of the workmen were made after following due procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1963, therefore, the appointment was given to them for a fixed term itself was illegal and as such on basis of an illegal condition referred in order of appointment, it could have not been held by the Labour Court that the appointment was for a term specified. Emphasis is also given by counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were in continuous service of the employer and, therefore, adequate compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 was mandatory and violation of that in any manner makes the retrenchment void.

Per contra, the stand of the employer is that the appointment though was made after following due procedure but that was only to maintain objectivity and fairness in selection proceedings. The appointment was given to the petitioners for a period of one year and as such the Labour Court rightly held that the termination of the workmen was not retrenchment.

Heard counsel for the parties and also gone through the record available.

It is not in dispute that before making appointment of the petitioners, selection proceedings were conducted, but in the order of appointment itself, it is made clear that the appointment given was only for a term of one year. The respondent employer in the terms of the order of appointment issued notices to the petitioners workmen for discontinuation from service on completion of the term of one year. The appointment by holding selection proceedings is a fair and objective mode for recruitment and that was rightly adhered by the respondent employer, but it does not mean that any right in favour of the petitioners was created for their substantive and regular appointment. The nature of appointment is required to be determined by the tenner of the order of appointment and according to that the appointment was only for a term of one year and as such on completion of that term the petitioners were discontinued from services. Such discontinuation from service on completion of the term specified is not at all a retrenchment as defined u/s 2(oo)(bb) of the Act of 1947, therefore, the Labour Court rightly held that no illegality was there in discontinuing the petitioners from service. It is also relevant to note that the petitioners never objected the term of appointment and as a matter of fact they availed appointment under the order having such term.

The other argument of counsel for the petitioners is that adequate compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 was not made, is also of no consequence as the termination of the petitioners from service was not retrenchment.

For the reasons stated above, I do not find any error in the award impugned that may warrant interference of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition for writ is dismissed.