Delhi District Court
Mrs. Usha Chandra vs The on 23 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI UMED SINGH GREWAL,
PILOT COURT / POLCXVII, ROOM NO. 514:
DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
LID No. 525/2016
Mrs. Usha Chandra
R/o H. NO. 112, Aram Park
Shastri Nagar, Delhi110031.
..............Workman
Versus
The Management of
M/s Butterflies
U4FF, Green Park Extn.
New Delhi110016.
..........Management
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 02.07.2008
DATE ON WHICH AWARD RESERVED : 11.10.2018
DATE ON WHICH AWARD PASSED : 23.10.2018
A W A R D :
1. This is a Direct Industrial Dispute filed by the workman
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act") for reinstatement in service, with continuity of service and full
back wages alongwith other consequential benefits.
1/25
2. Claimant's case is that she had joined the management as
music and dance teacher on 28.5.2007 at the last drawn salary of Rs.
8,000/ per month. Initially, she was appointed on probation upto
27.8.2007. Her service was appreciated and commended as excellent
during probation and hence, after completion of that period, she was
informed that her service had been confirmed. Her senior colleague
Sh. P.N. Rai used to harass her and hence, she had filed a complaint
against him in October 2007. He was very close to Director Ms. Rita
Panicker and hence, she started putting pressure upon her to withdraw
the complaint. In order to compel her to do so, she was harassed in
several ways. When probation period was over on 27.8.2007, the same
was not extended and she continued working with the management and
it suggests that her service had been confirmed. The management had
nothing against her till January 2008. On 2.1.2008, the management
misguided her to receive the letter dated 2.1.2008 vide which she was
appointed on contract basis from 2.1.2008 to 30.4.2008. As her
service was not terminated till 2.1.2008 from the date of appointment
on 28.05.2007, a fresh appointment letter dated 2.1.2008 looses its
significance. Mr. Thomas Chooranolil was Administrator of the
management and he knew that she was very innocent and docile lady
and so, he advised her to give an application after 30.4.2008 for fresh
appointment. After receiving that application, the management
informed her that her service stood terminated w.e.f 30.4.2008.
2/25
Against termination, she had sent demand notice dated 14.6.2008 but it
went unresponded. 16 other employees had supported her in complaint
against the management. Sh. P.N. Rai and those persons were also
removed from service. No notice was given and no notice pay and
retrenchment compensation were tendered before terminating her
service. Number of juniors were still in the employment at that time.
The post of music and dance teacher is permanent and perennial one
and so, there is no reason that the management would not have
confirmed her service on that designation. She is jobless since
termination.
3. Written statement is to the effect that the management, a
voluntary organization and society registered under the Societies
Registration Act, is working for the rights of street and working
children in Delhi since 1989. The claimant was appointed on
contractual basis as a music and dance teacher on the project namely
"Taking Education to Street" supported by Michael and Susan Dell
Foundation. The post was temporary as it was created only for that
project which was initially for one year commencing from 15.11.2006
and ending on 14.11.2007. The project was later extended till April
30.4.2008 as the same could not be completed within the stipulated
period. The contractual appointment letter issued to the claimant on
3/25
28.5.2007 also contained the term that her service might be extended.
So, after extension of project, claimant's contract was also extended
upto 30.4.2008 vide letter dated 2.1.2008. The claimant, being a music
and dance teacher, is not a work lady with the meaning of Section 2(s)
of I.D. Act, 1947. Her job required an imaginative and creative mind
and the same cannot be termed as manual, skilled, unskilled, clerical in
nature. The clerical work, if any, was only incidental to her principal
work of teaching. Her appointment was only for a particular project
after completion of which the contract was not extended. As she had
worked for about one year, she was asked in good faith by the
administrator to give an application for fresh appointment for a new
project which was going to start. She had given an application and
was called for an interview held on 6.6.2008. She was interviewed by
three members i.e by Administrator, Street Project Coordinator and
Development Manager / Educationist. She did not have requisite
clarification for the future project and hence, she was not appointed.
It has been denied that any officer of the management had put pressure
upon the claimant to resile from her complaint against Sh. P.N. Rai.
The dismissal of service of 16 employees had nothing to do with her
complaint against Sh. P.N. Rai.
4. Following issues were framed on 3.10.2008 :
1. Whether the claimant is a workman as defined u/s 2 (s) of I.D. Act?
4/25
2. Whether services of the workman were terminated illegally and/or
unjustifiably by the management?
3. Relief.
5. In order to substantiate the case, the claimant tendered her
affidavit in evidence as Ex.WW1/A mentioning all the facts stated in
statement of claim. She relied upon following documents :
1. Ex.WW1/1 is her appointment letter dated 28.5.2007.
2. Ex.WW1/2 is the demand notice dated 14.6.2008.
3. Ex.WW1/3 is the postal receipt.
4. Mark A is the complaint dated 6.2.2008 made by her against the
management / Sh. P.N. Rai to SHO P.S. Lahori Gate.
6. Management examined five witnesses.
MW1 Sh. Satyavir Singh is working with the management
since 1992 as HeadStreet Project. MW2 Sh. Asif Ali Chaudhary is
working as HeadMobile Education with the management. MW3 Sh.
P.N. Rai is working as Coordinator (Night Shelter) since 1993. They
deposed unanimously that the management was a voluntary
organization and society registered under Societies Registration Act
and was working for the rights of street children in Delhi since 1989.
The claimant was appointed by it on contractual basis as music and
dance teacher for the project namely "Taking education to street"
5/25
supported by Michael and Susan Dell Foundation. That post was
temporary and was created only for that project. The tenure of the
project was initially for one year from 15.11.2006 to 14.11.2007 which
was later extended upto April 30.4.2008 and simultaneously, the
contractual employment of the claimant was also extended upto the
same date. Then they deposed about the nature of duty of the claimant.
MW4 Sh. Chandra Bhushan Jha is working as Senior
Accountant with the management since 2008. He deposed all the facts
as deposed by MW1, MW2 and MW3. Additionally, he deposed that
the contractual employment of the claimant was not extended beyond
30.4.2008 as the project for which she was appointed, had expired on
that day. Another project was opening during those days for which she
had applied. She was interviewed on 6.5.2008 but she was not found fit
for that post and hence, was not selected.
MW5 Sh. Thomas Chooranolil is the Administrator of the
management and he is working with it since 1995. He was given
authority by the Director of the management on 13.2.2004 to sign all
documents relating to Human Resource Department. That power
included signing appointment letters, service contracts, granting
leaves, payment of salary, deductions and PF etc. He deposed all the
facts stated on oath by MW4. Additionally, he deposed that the
complaint given by claimant against the management's employee Sh.
6/25
P.N. Rai was taken very seriously by it and requisite action was taken.
She was treated with all due respect during her tenure by each and
sundry of the management. The project for which she was appointed
had expired on 30.4.2008 and on that day, her complaint against Sh.
P.N. Rai was still pending. Her employment could not be extended
further because the project for which she was appointed had lived its
full life. No officer of the management had any animosity with her. If
the management wanted to terminate her service due to filing of
complaint against Sh. P.N. Rai in October 2007, the management
would not have extended her contractual employment which had
expired in the end of December 2007.
ISSUE No. 1
7. Ld. ARM argued that the claimant was appointed as music
and dance teacher. She was to take independent decisions and was to
involve herself in imaginative and creative work. She was to use music
and dance to bring out the creative forces in the children. Her main job
was to teach and she might have been assigned some minor several
work also but as her primary nature of duty was to teach the children
and hence, she is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of I.D.
Act, 1947.
Ld. ARW argued that the management is not a recognized
school and hence, cannot appoint any person as a teacher. The
7/25
claimant was compelled to catch street children and to guide them so
that the management can give them some facilities. Such a person is
definitely a worklady.
8. In Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs Ajit
Singh, (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 232, the claimant was a LLB
degree holder and he was appointed on the post of Legal Assistant.
The nature of his duty was to prepare written statements and notices,
recording inquiry proceedings, giving opinions to the management,
drafting, filing the pleadings and representing the management in all
types of cases i.e civil, labour and arbitration references independently.
He also used to conduct departmental inquiries against the workmen
employed in the industrial undertaking of the management. Hon'ble
Supreme Court held him to be not a workman propounding that to fall
within the definition of workman, the job of the employee concerned
must fall within one or the other categories enumerated in the
expression "any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,
clerical or supervisory work". It further held that merely saying that
any employee concerned had not been performing any managerial or
supervisory duties, does not ispofacto make him a workman."
In Miss A. Sundarambal Vs Government of Goa,
Daman and Diu & Ors., (1988) 4 Supreme Court Cases 42, Hon'ble
Apex Court held that the teachers employed by educational institutions
8/25
whether the said institutions are imparting primary, secondary,
graduate or postgraduate education cannot be called as 'workmen'
within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Act. Hon'ble Apex Court
held that imparting of education was the main function of the teachers
and that function cannot be considered as skilled or unskilled manual
work or supervisory work or technical or clerical work. It further held
that imparting of education is in the nature of a mission or a noble
vacation. The clerical work, if any they may do, is only incidental to
their principal work of teaching.
In Amar Jyoti School Vs Government of NCT of Delhi
& Ors., W.P (C) No. 13445/2005, the respondent was a physical
education teacher and it was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that he was not a workman. Hon'ble Apex Court held in Bharat Bhawan Trust Vs Bharat Bhawan Artists Association, 2001 Law Suit (SC) 1096 that the artists are not workmen, in following words :
10. An artist engaged in the production of drama or in theatre management or to participate in a play can by no stretch of imagination be termed as "workman" because they do not indulge in any manual, unskilled or technical, operational or clerical work, though they may be skilled, it is not such a work which can be read ejusdem generis alongwith other kinds of work mentioned in the definition. A Constitution Bench of this Court in 9/25 H.R. Adyanthaya Vs Sandoz (India) Ltd.'s case, (supra) after review of the entire case law, held as follows : "............. As regards the work "skilled" we are of view that the connotation of the said word in the context in which it is used, will not include the work of a sales promotion employee such as the medical representative in the present case. That word has to be construed ejusdem generis and thus construed would mean skilled work whether manual or nonmanual, which is of a genre of the other types of work mentioned in the definition ...................."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. The work that the respondents perform is in the nature of a creative art and their work is neither subject to an order required from the Art Director nor from any of the artists. In performing their work, they have to bring to their work, their artistic ability, talent and a sense of perception for the purpose of production of drama involving in the course of such work, the application of the correct technique and the selection of the cast, the play, the manner of presentation, the light and shade effects and so on. In effect, the work they do is creative art which only a person with an artistic talent and requisite technique can manage. To call such a person, a skilled or a manual worker is altogether inappropriate. An artist must be distinguished from a skilled manual worker by the inherent qualities, which are necessary in an artist, allied to training and technique. We derive support for this 10/25 proposition from T.P. Srivastava Vs M/s National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd.'s case (supra) wherein section salesman employed for convassing and promoting sales of company's products in an area could not be put under the category of "workman". There is no question of any work being given to them because the work of an artist is essentially creative, and freedom of expression is an integral part of it. In Hussainbhai Vs Alath Factory Tezhilali Union, 1978 Lab IC 1264 : (AIR 1978 SC 1410) this Court held as under :
"Where a worker or a group of workers labour to produce goods or service and these goods or services are for the business of another, that other is in fact the employer." In this case, firstly, no goods and services are being produced, secondly, the acting that is done is not for the business of another. There is a mere expression of creative talent, which is part of freedom of expression.
12. The other work, apart from acting, that is entrusted to them is only ancillary to the main work and thus the respondents are not "workmen".
9. In the case in hand, the claimant herself has placed on record her appointment letter as Ex.WW1/1 in which it is mentioned that the management was appointing her as a music and dance teacher. The nature of her duties are mentioned as under : 11/25 Designation : MUSIC & DANCE TEACHER Job Description :
• Use music and dance to bring out the creative forces in children.
• Develop their understanding and appreciation of a wide range of different kinds of music, developing and extending their own interests and increasing their ability to make judgments of musical quality ;
• Help children to acquire knowledge, skills and understanding needed to make music, for example in community musicmaking.
• Use a variety of folk songs and dance to illustrate the diverse cultural heritage of our country.
• Encourage children to appreciate the music and dance traditions of their communities as well as contemporary music activities.
• Focus on the music and movement programs in an integrated manner.
• Teach children about beat, tones, and lyrics by singing songs to them and with them in order to develop auditory discrimination skill.
• Teach free dancing motions to music as well as more formal dances.
• Teach children about rhythm : Rhythmical clapping exercises, imitation with hands, feet and body.12/25
• Use creative movement (dance) to teach children about their own personal bodies, the space around them, and their peers.
• Use music to develop cognitive skills, such as counting, the alphabet, days of the week their address and phone number, just to name a few Develop skills, attitudes and attributes that can support learning in other subject areas and that are needed for life and work, for example listening skills, the ability to concentrate, creativity, intuition, aesthetic sensitivity, perseverance, selfconfidence and sensitivity towards others.
• Help the children to participate during the special occasions, through dance, musicvocal/instrumental.
Instruments • Set music to stories with instruments and sounds.
• Teach the use of various instruments to promote fine motor development and encourage creative development, and also learn concepts such as balance, coordination, rhythm.
• Instruct children on the instruments : looking at, describing, materials, sound, identify, try oneself.
Others.
• Conduct training sessions for both teachers and child right facilitators to encourage them to use music and dance instruction as part of their curriculum transaction.
• Assess children based on their performance and by means of quizzes (with questions on guessing sounds or voices or identify instruments in an orchestra etc. one can use CDs or cassettes to ask questions) 13/25 • Arrange intercontact point music and dance competitions.
• Organize field trips for children to (recording studio, music academies, triveni, dance schools etc.) • Equip children to perform at cultural evenings as well as in national celebrations and festivals.
• Discuss with children the possibilities and opportunities of using skills in music and dance as a vocational subject aiming at providing basic and relevant employment skills to either undertake incomegenerating projects or secure employment.
• Provide monthly data on the Music and Classical/Folk Dance interests of children.
• Prepare the children to participate in mimes, dances, music during the cultural programs.
• Participate in external meetings, conferences, seminars, workshops, trainings and exposure programs.
• Submit reports to the supervisor periodically or as and when desired.
10. It is the case of claimant herself in statement of claim and affidavit in evidence that she was appointed as a music and dance teacher. In crossexamination, she admitted in the first sentence that she was employed as a music teacher. She put a rider that the management used to take some other works also from her such as to take round in the area of Connaught Place, New Delhi Railway Station, 14/25 Old Delhi Railway Station, Jama Masjid, Kashmere Gate, Fatehpuri, Nehru Place, Okhla Mandi etc to see street children and to guide them that the management can give them some facilities. She next admitted that she and other music teachers used to teach the children some activities for performing dance, drama and music. She admitted her creative duties by deposing that she used to write scripts and songs for doing aforesaid performances by the children. On the basis of her script, other persons also used to teach singing of songs and playing drama and dance etc. The crossexamination of claimant shows that principal nature of her duty was teaching. The incidental duty was to visit some public places in order to cause street children to believe to join the management. She used to do creative and imaginative work for the management. She used to take independent decisions and such a person is definitely not a workman / worklady. This issue is decided in favour of management and against claimant.
ISSUE NO. 211. Ld. ARM argued that the claimant was appointed only for a particular project and for a fixed term i.e from 28.5.2007 to 31.12.2007. Continuity of her job till 31.12.2007 was subject to satisfactory completion of probation period of three months from 28.5.2007 to 27.8.2007. She successfully cleared the probation period and hence continued till 31.12.2007. The name of the project was "Butterflies Street & Working Children Project", which was sponsored 15/25 by Michael and Susan Dell Foundation but it could not be completed till 31.12.2007 and was extended till 30.4.2008 and hence, service of the claimant was also extended till that date. The project was completed on 30.4.2008 and so, claimant's tenure was not renewed. It is not a case of retrenchment but of non renewal of contract which is covered u/s 2 (oo) (bb) of I.D. Act, 1947.
Ld. ARW argued that the claimant's service was terminated on 30.4.2008 because she had given complaint against one of its employee Sh. P.N. Rai in October 2007 and Sh. P.N. Rai was very close to the Director of the management and hence, the director had started putting pressure upon her to withdraw the complaint. When she did not buckle under pressure, her service was terminated. He further argued that the case is not covered u/s 2 (oo) (bb) of I.D. Act, 1947 because the name of project is not mentioned in the appointment letter. The management did not place on record any document to prove that the said project was completed on 30.4.2008.
12. The appointment letter has been placed on record by the claimant herself as Ex.WW1/1 in which it is very clearly mentioned that she was being appointed from 28.5.2007 to 31.12.2007 and that her appointment till that date was subject to satisfactory completion of probation period from 28.5.2007 to 27.8.2007. The appointment letter 16/25 makes it further clear that she would be allowed to continue beyond 27.8.2007 if her performance was found satisfactory. It is her own case that at first instance, she continued till 31.12.2007. It means that her probation period was satisfactory. But her probation period being satisfactory does not mean that she was appointed on regular and permanent post because it is mentioned in the appointment letter itself that if probation period was satisfactory, she would be allowed to continue till 31.12.2007. Ld. ARW is absolutely wrong to argue that the name of project was not mentioned in the appointment letter because the name of the same is mentioned as "Butterflies Street & Working Children Project".
It has been alleged by the claimant that the management had illegally issued her second appointment letter dated 2.1.2008 because after completion of probation period, she had become permanent employee of the management. Her allegation is absolutely false because after successful completion of probation period, she was allowed to continue till 31.12.2007 as per appointment letter Ex.WW1/1. When the project was not completed and was extended till 30.4.2008, her service was also extended upto that date. It is correct that the management has not filed any document to prove that the said project had come to an end on 30.4.2008 but issuance of first appointment letter from 28.5.2007 till 31.12.2007 and extension of the same from 2.1.2008 to 30.4.2008 shows that she was appointed only 17/25 for a particular project which was initially till 31.12.2007 but it was later extended till 30.4.2008.
It is the admitted case of both the parties that the claimant had given complaint against Sh. P.N. Rai, an employee of the management. Her allegation that the said complaint was the basis of her termination is also baseless because if the management wanted to terminate her service on that ground, it would not have extended her service beyond 31.12.2007. Also, it is her own case in statement of claim and affidavit in evidence that one of the officer of the management had asked her to apply for another project after 30.4.2008 for which she had applied. The management has placed on record interview feed back as Ex.MW5/X1. It is pertinent to mention that when the job of the claimant had come to an end on 30.4.2008, the claimant had applied for the job of teacher in another project which was to come in the future. She was interviewed but was not found having requisite experience and qualification and hence, was rejected. If the management wanted to terminate due to her complaint against Sh. P.N. Rai, it would not have invited her for interview.
13. The claimant was appointed only for a particular project and fixed duration. The mode and manner of termination of her service was specified in appointment letter itself. So, the case of the management is well covered u/s 2 (oo) (bb) of I.D. Act, 1947. The 18/25 termination of her service is not retrenchment.
14. In Mahipal Singh Vs National Seeds Corporation, WP (C) 5210/2011, the petitioner was appointed on a fixed term of 89 days and after extending her tenure for some more months, no further renewal was granted. Hon'ble High Court held that the case was covered u/s 2 (oo) (bb) of I.D. Act, 1947.
In State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs Rameshwar Lal Gahlot, AIR 1996 SC 1001, the workman was appointed for three months or till the regularly selected candidate assumed office. He was appointed on 28.1.1988 and his appointment came to be terminated on 19.11.1988. Hon'ble Apex Court relying upon M. Venugopal Vs Divisional Manager, LIC, (1994) 2 SCC 323, held that the case was covered u/s 2 (oo) (bb) of I.D. Act, 1947.
In M/s Haryana State FCCW Store Ltd. & Ors. Vs Ram Niwas & Anr., AIR 2002 SC 2495, the claimant was appointed as watchman to guard stock of grain stored in open area of Mandi. Employer order sanctioning his engagement stated that the engagement was for a specific purpose and for particular period. Termination of his service after the purpose and period of engagement was over, was held not to be 'retrenchment'.
19/25In Batala Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd Vs Sowaran Singh, AIR 2006 SC 56, the evidence showed that the workman was engaged for a specific period and work. It was held that if after the specific work, the services were terminated, it was not a case of retrenchment.
In M.D. Karnataka Handloom Dev. Corpn. Ltd. Vs Mahadeva Laxman Raval, AIR 2007 SCC 631, the workman was appointed for a fixed period and particular scheme. After the scheme was over, his service was terminated. Hon'ble Apex Court held that the termination of his contract did not amount to retrenchment.
15. In Harmohinder Singh Vs. Khrga Canteen, Ambala Cantt, (2001) 5 Supreme Court Case 540, the appellant was appointed as a Salesman by the respondent canteen on 01.06.1974 and subsequently as a Cashier on 09.08.1975. The letter of appointment and standing orders provided that services of the appellant could be terminated by one month's notice by either party. The standing orders also provided that services of all the canteen employees will be on temporary basis extendable on six months basis. The Apex Court held that argument on the basis of Section 25F of the I.D. Act was equally misconceived. This section deals with conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. It would not apply to para 3A because of 20/25 definition of retrenchment in Section 2(oo) (bb).
In Punjab State Electricity Board and Anr. Vs. Sudesh Kumar Puri Appeal (civil) 648 of 2007 decided on 09.07.2007, following was held by the Apex Court : "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."
In Surjeet Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer, 2007 (138) DLT 609, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held "Therefore, if there is stipulation in the 'contract of employment between the employer and the workman' providing the mode and manner of the termination of service. Such termination of service has now specifically been excluded from the definition of 'retrenchment' by Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the I.D. Act."
In Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology Vs. Shri 21/25 Dilkhush Bairwa, 2006 (129) DLT 806, the workman was notified vide letter of appointment that he was appointed to the post in pay scale of Rs.975251150EB301540. The appointment letter contained clause 1 wherein it was stated that the post was temporary, but the respondent was appointed on adhoc basis for a period of 6 months. Following was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi : "13. In a pronouncement of Supreme Court reported at (1997) 11 SCC 521 entitled Escorts Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer and Anr., an argument was laid that even though a workman had been appointed on temporary basis for period of two month, it was urged that because the workman had worked for 240 days, the termination of his services amounted to retrenchment under Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the same being in violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was illegal. The Apex Court held that it was unnecessary to to into the question whether a workman had worked for 240 days in a year inasmuch termination of services of the workman did not constitute retrenchment in view of clause (bb) in Section 2(oo) of the Act. The termination of the services of the workman was in accordance with the stipulation contained in his contract which is to be found in his letter of appointment. Therefore, even though termination of the services of the workman was before the expiry of the period of probation, however, since the 22/25 termination of the service was in accordance with the terms of contract, it fell within the ambit of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the statute and did not constitute retrenchment. In this regard, the Supreme Court cited with approval its earlier decision reported at (1994) 2 SCC 323 entitled M. Venugopal Vs. Divisional Manager, LIC.
14. Therefore, there can be no manner of doubt that this Court is bound by the authoritative judicial pronouncement of law to the effect that so long as the termination of service of workman is in accordance with the terms of contract on or expiry of the contract, the same does not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of the expression as it is excepted under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In these circumstances, the employer would not be required to comply with the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the authoritative and binding pronouncement of the Apex Court in (1996) 1 SCC 595 (para 5) entitled State of Rajasthan Vs. Rameshwar Lal Gahlot, it was held by the Supreme Court that termination on account of expiry of the specified period mentioned in the appointment letter would be valid, unless the same is found to be mala fide or in colourable exercise of power. In its absence, the employer could terminate the services in terms of letter of appointment. The court held that such a 23/25 termination would be covered by Clause (bb) of Section 2 (oo) of the Act and, therefore, Section 25F would have no application. In 2002(5) SCC 646 (para 15) entitled Haryana State F.C.C.W. Store Ltd. & Another Vs. Ram Niwas & Another, the engagement of the workman was for a specific purpose and for a particular period and disengagement was effected when the period of their appointment had expired. It was held that such disengagement was in terms of the contract of service and, therefore, not "retrenchment" within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act. In these circumstances, in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforenoticed judgment, Section 25F would have no application to the facts and circumstances of the case.
16. In view of above discussion, this issue is also decided in favour of management and against claimant.
ISSUE NO. 317. Consequent to decision on issue number 1 and 2, it is held that claimant is not entitled to any relief. Statement of claim is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their costs. Reference is answered accordingly. Award is passed accordingly.
18. The requisite number of copies of the award be sent to the 24/25 Govt. of NCT of Delhi for its publication. File be consigned to Record Room.
Dictated & announced in the open Court on 23.10.2018.
(UMED SINGH GREWAL) POLCXVII/DWARKA COURTS NEW DELHI 25/25