Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
State Of Rajasthan vs Jodhpur Region P.W.D. (B And R) Mazdoor ... on 11 February, 1986
Equivalent citations: (1995)IIILLJ596RAJ
JUDGMENT A.K. Mathur, J.
1. The petitioner, State of Rajasthan, by this writ petition has challenged the Award passed by the Judge, Industrial Tribunal, Jodhpur, dated 1st July, 1985 (Ex.P/-3).
2. The Secretary, Mazdoor Union, P.W.D. Jodhpur, respondent No. 1, has raised an industrial dispute and the Labour Department in the State of Rajasthan has referred the matter for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal that whether the services of 14 persons of Mechanical Division, P.W.D. Jodhpur have been rightly and legally terminated by their employer, Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, P.W.D. Jodhpur and if not for what relief they are entitled. These 14 persons were appointed by the Executive Engineer P.W.D. Jodhpur, by the order dated 11th October, 1979 vide Ex.P/-1, on purely ad hoc basis on the post of Helper Grade II and it was clearly mentioned that the appointments of these is for the famine operation and as soon as famine operation is over their appointments shall stand terminated without any notice. As soon as the famine operation was over the services of these 14 persons were terminated by the order dated 12th August, 1981 Ex.P/-2. The learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal, after considering over the matter held that since these persons had completed 240 days and their services have not been terminated in terms of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1947) therefore the order of termination is bad and they are entitled to all back wages from the date of termination. Aggrieved against this order the petitioner State of Rajasthan has filed this writ petition challenging the Award of the Tribunal dated 1st July, 1985.
3. Mr. Mehta, learned Deputy Government Advocate has raised three questions for my consideration. Firstly, that Famine Relief Operation does not fall in the definition of 'Industry' therefore the Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable. Secondly, it has been submitted that it is a case of closure under Section 25FFF, therefore, these labourers are not entitled to protection of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Lastly he submitted that the appointment of these persons was for fixed term, therefore, they are not entitled to any benefit.
4. I need not go to examine all the contentions raised by the learned Deputy Government Advocate, but this writ petition can be allowed on very short question that whether the appointments of these persons were on fixed term or not. In terms of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 these labourers are not entitled to any benefit under Section 25F of the Act of 1947. Orders Ex.P1-A, P1/-B, P1/-C clearly says that the appointment of these persons was clearly on ad hoc basis till the famine operation. It has further been mentioned in the orders Ex.P1/- A, Ex.Pl/-B and Ex.P1/C that these appointments shall automatically come to an end the moment famine operations are over. Section 25F is reproduced as under as it stood at the relevant time i.e. 12.8.81.
"25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. - No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-
(a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice wages for the period of the notice:
Provided that no such notice shall be necessary if the retrenchment is under an agreement which specifies a date for the termination of service.
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent of fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.
The proviso to Section 25F(a) clearly says that no such notice shall be necessary if the retrenchment is under an agreement which specifies the date of termination of service. In the present case the very nature of the appointment was ad hoc and temporary and it is to last tilt famine operations are in existence. The day the operations are closed, from that date respondents' services shall stand terminated. Thus, in the very nature of the appointments it is clearly stated that these appointments are for fixed term and as soon as that fixed term i.e. famine operations are over the services of such persons shall stand terminated and they will not be entitled to notice of retrenchment. Thus, this aspect has been completely lost sight by the Tribunal. Thus, without going to the other questions which have been raised for consideration, I think this writ petition deserves to be allowed on this short, question only.
5. Thus, in the result I allow this writ petition and set aside the award of the Tribunal dated 1st July, 1985 and declare that the respondents are not entitled to any retrenchment benefit under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, in view of the proviso to Section 25F(a) of the Act. The claim filed by the respondent-Union is rejected.
No order as to costs.