1997 JTR(SC) 566
1997 AIR(SC) 3657 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 1903 ; 1997 BBCJ(SC) 147 ; 1997 2 CLR 15 ; 1997 90 FJR 465 ; 1997 76 FLR 237 ; 1997 4 JT 560 ; 1997 2 KLT(SN) 10 ; 1997 LIC 2075 ; 1998 2 LLJ 15 ; 1997 2 LLN 982 ; 1997 2 PLJR(SC) 38 ; 1997 3 RSJ 298 ; 1997 3 Scale 463 ; 1997 4 SCC 391 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 1079 ; 1997 3 SCR 368 ; 1997 2 SLR 570 ; 1997 KHC 1718 ; 1997 KHC 500 ; 1997 3 Supreme 733
1997(3) Supreme 733
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi & Ors. -Petitioners
versus
State of Bihar & Ors. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7957 of 1996
(CC-6908/96)
Decided on 26-3-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioners : Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Termination of services of person appointed on daily wage basis can not be termed arbitrary since such employee had no right to the post.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.309
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT : S.2(j), S.25(f), S.2(o)(o)
SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The analysis is governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, specifically Section 2(o) defining 'retrenchment' and Section 25F protecting against arbitrary termination, read against the backdrop of Article 309 on public service conduct and Section 2(j) defining 'industry'. The appointment of the petitioners as daily wage employees in a non-industrial, statutory training institute, governed by rules and not regularized posts, establishes that the entity does not fall within the expansive definition of 'industry' under the Act, thereby excluding the application of industrial dispute protections. The Constitution of India, Article 309, further justifies the imposition of statutory service rules that, when absent, negate the protections available under the Industrial Disputes Act.
(B) The core legal principles are that the applicability of Section 25F is contingent upon the existence of an 'industry'; daily wage employees engaged without formal appointment under rules are temporary in nature and do not attract the protections against retrenchment; and the absence of formal appointment under statutory rules places the employment outside the coverage of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were appointed as daily wage employeesAssistant, Driver, and Peonin a Co-operative Training Institute. Their engagement was based on the work's need rather than statutory rules, and their service was terminated by the Principal. The central issue was whether this termination constituted 'retrenchment' under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the institute was not an 'industry' as defined by the Act, since appointments were not governed by statutory rules. Consequently, the concept of 'retrenchment' could not apply, and the termination, while possibly arbitrary, did not fall within the Act's ambit.
Issues:
Whether the petitioners' termination can be characterized as 'retrenchment' under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Ratio Decidendi:
Since the petitioners were temporary daily wage employees appointed outside the framework of statutory rules in a non-industrial setup, their discharge does not attract the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Result:
The special leave petition is dismissed and the appeal is dismissed.
(A) The analysis is governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, specifically Section 2(o) defining 'retrenchment' and Section 25F protecting against arbitrary termination, read against the backdrop of Article 309 on public service conduct and Section 2(j) defining 'industry'. The appointment of the petitioners as daily wage employees in a non-industrial, statutory training institute, governed by rules and not regularized posts, establishes that the entity does not fall within the expansive definition of 'industry' under the Act, thereby excluding the application of industrial dispute protections. The Constitution of India, Article 309, further justifies the imposition of statutory service rules that, when absent, negate the protections available under the Industrial Disputes Act.
(B) The core legal principles are that the applicability of Section 25F is contingent upon the existence of an 'industry'; daily wage employees engaged without formal appointment under rules are temporary in nature and do not attract the protections against retrenchment; and the absence of formal appointment under statutory rules places the employment outside the coverage of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were appointed as daily wage employeesAssistant, Driver, and Peonin a Co-operative Training Institute. Their engagement was based on the work's need rather than statutory rules, and their service was terminated by the Principal. The central issue was whether this termination constituted 'retrenchment' under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the institute was not an 'industry' as defined by the Act, since appointments were not governed by statutory rules. Consequently, the concept of 'retrenchment' could not apply, and the termination, while possibly arbitrary, did not fall within the Act's ambit.
Issues:
Whether the petitioners' termination can be characterized as 'retrenchment' under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Ratio Decidendi:
Since the petitioners were temporary daily wage employees appointed outside the framework of statutory rules in a non-industrial setup, their discharge does not attract the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Result:
The special leave petition is dismissed and the appeal is dismissed.
ORDER
Delay condoned.
2. This special leave petition arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, made on 1.7.1996 in LPA No. 1213/95 confirming the order of the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 2311/95.
3. The admitted position is that the petitioner No. 1 came to be appointed as Assistant, Petitioner No. 2 as Driver and Petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 as Peons on different dates, viz., on August 1, 1988, November 10, 1989, May 31, 1987 and April 22, 1992. They were appointed in the Co-operative Training Institute, Deoghar by its Principal. They are admittedly daily wage employees. Their services came to be terminated by the Principal. Calling that termination in question, they filed a writ petition in the High Court. The main grievance of the petitioners before us is that termination of their services is in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The question for consideration, therefore, is: whether the petitioners can be said to have been retrenched within the meaning of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act? Every Department of the Government cannot be treated to be "industry". When the appointments are regulated by the statutory rules, the concept of "industry" to that extent stands excluded. Admittedly, they were not appointed to the posts in accordance with the rules but were engaged on the basis of need of the work. They are temporary employees working on daily wages. Under these circumstances, their disengagement from service cannot be construed to be a retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act. The concept of "retrenchment", therefore, cannot be stretched to such an extent as to cover these employees. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to contend that in the High Court, the petitioners did not contend that it is a case of retrenchment but termination of their services is arbitrary. Since they are only daily-wage employees and have no right to the posts, their disengagement is not arbitrary.
4. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
********