Jharkhand High Court
Steel Authority Of India Ltd. vs The Workmen Of The Management Of Steel ... on 4 May, 2006
Equivalent citations: [2006(3)JCR432(JHR)], (2007)ILLJ185JHAR
Author: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
Bench: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant, Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro (hereinafter referred as 'the Company') against the judgment dated 30th September, 2003 passed by learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 2186 of 1996(R), whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, as was preferred by the appellant-Company against the Award dated 18th December, 1995 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro in Reference Case No. 11 of 1990.
2. As the case can be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one, as detailed hereunder :
The workman, Chandra Sekhar Jha was engaged as Khalasi for a period of three months' on 6th September, 1984 in Blast Furnace of Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro. It was extended from time to time and his name was struck off from the role of the Company on 1st January, 1986 without any notice to him. The conciliation having failed, at the instance of Union, the Government of Bihar, in exercise of power conferred under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as 'I.D. Act, 1947'), referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Bokaro by Notification No. 4/D2-14054/ 89, L.E & T-522 dated 17th May, 1990 :
Whether the removal from service of Shri Chandra Shekhar Jha-Staff No. C-04720 Blast Furnace, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City by the Management is justified ? If not, whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement and what kind of relief ?
Before the Presiding Officer, the Union on behalf of workman took plea that provision of Section 25F of the ID Act, 1947 was not followed. The workman had completed 240 days of continuous of service in the Company but without giving one month's notice in writing indicating reason for retrenchment and without paying the retrenchment compensation, the workman was removed from service. The Management-Company specifically pleaded that the case of the workman was covered by Section 2(00)(bb) of the ID Act, 1947 and, therefore, no prior notice was required to be given nor retrenchment compensation was payable. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro vide its Award dated 18th December, 1995 answered the Reference in favour of workman and against the management-Company and held the action of the Management in doing away with the services of the workman as illegal, mala fide and unjustified, Section 25F having been violated. The Management-Company was also directed to absorb the concerned workman in the regular cadre of Khalasi with effect from the date he had completed 240 days of service. Learned Single Judge affirmed the Award by judgment dated 30th September, 2003 and rejected the claim of the Management-Company on one of the grounds that the Management-Company had not taken the specific plea that the appointment of the concerned workman was contractual in nature.
The letter of appointment dated 6th September, 1984 with regard to workman, Chandra Sekhaar Jha was exhibited as Ext Ml before the Labour Court, Bokaro, enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The terms and conditions including duration of appointment has been mentioned therein, which is quoted hereunder :
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD BOKARO STEEL PLANT PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT RECRUITMENT Section No Pars/R/Kha/Maz/casual/84 To, Shri Chandra Shekhar Jha, DUPS/75/83 Dated 6.9.84 Dear Sir, We hereby offer you the appointment to the post of Khalasi/Maz, on casual basis at a daily rate of Rs. 25.41 (Rupees twenty five and paise forty one) only.
The term and conditions of your service including the termination thereof will be as follows:
(a) Duration of appointment for a period of 3 (three) months with effect from the date you actually join the post.
(b) Notice for termination of appointment : Your services are liable to be terminated before the expiry of your terms of appointment by giving you fourteen days notice or payment of salary in lieu thereof. If you desire to resign you will be required to give a similar notice of fourteen days to the Company.
No other allowance would be admissible to you.
In any matter which are not covered in the offer an appointment you will be governed by the rules and regulations framed by the company from time to time.
You will be entitled to Medical treatment for self only in Hospitals.
If the above terms and conditions are acceptable to you, you are advised to report for duty to the Chief Supdt. BF(O) immediately.
NB : You will be required to do floor/shop cleaning job also.
Yours faithfully For, SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant Sd/- (M. Baa) Asstt. Manager (Pers-Rectt) It was extended from time to time, till by order dated 11/ 12th December, 1985. It was ordered not to extend casual term in respect of five workmen including the workman, Chandra Shekhar Jha, for the reasons mentioned therein, which is quoted hereunder :
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD BOKARO STEEL PLANT confidential INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE No. BF/op/(13)/85-57O3 Date 11/12.12.85 From Chief Superintendent (Iron)/ To Asst. Mgr, (Fers-Recruitment) Sub : Extension of casual term Ref : Your letter No PERS(R)/Casual/ Dy'Mgr (85-1720 on the above subject.
Out of 100 casual employees as per your list, Shri Moti Das (SI. No. 85 in your list), casual No. C/05041 is not in B.F.(O) department. The casual term in respect of the following five employees should not be extended any further. (S/Shri)
(i) M.R. Jamuda Casual F/hand C/04168 not reporting in duty for a long time.
(ii) Anil Ram Kalindi doC/ 05747 Absenting from immediate after joining till date.
(iii) Dukhan Paswan do C/ 04220 Poor conduct & unsatisfactory performance
(iv) H.P. Singh Casual Khalasi C/ 04560 Habitual unauthorized absentee. His case for such absence was earlier refused to you wherein it was suggested from your end that his casual term will not be extended any further. The note sheet contains that is attached herewith.
(v) C.S. Jha Casual Khalasi C/ 04720 He has forged the signature of officer for getting OT & attendance The casual term of the rest 94 employees (as per your note) may please be extended.
Encl. As stated above & also list of the casual employees Sd/-
(B.P. Singh) 12.12.1985 Superintendent (BF) for Chief Superintendent (Iron) The aforesaid letter dated 11/12th December, 1985, enclosed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, was also placed by the Management-Company as one of the Exhibits i.e., Ext.-M2.
2. From the aforesaid two evidences, it will be evident that the Management Company brought to the notice of the Labour Court that the workman was engaged on contract basis for a specified period, which was extended from time to time and also shown grounds for not extending the period of service beyond the fixed period. Learned Single Judge failed to notice the aforesaid relevant exhibits, particularly, Exhibits Ml and M2 and erred in holding that the Management-Company had not taken plea that the appointment of the concerned workman was contractual in nature and that the said contract was not renewed.
Section 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act, 1947 defines 'retrenchment' but does not include termination of services of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation on that behalf contained therein, [seeSection 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act.
The Supreme Court in the case of "Harmohinder Singh v. Kharga Canteen also held that Section 25F is not applicable in the case of termination of service on expiry of contract of service for a fixed term.
The appointment of workman having been made for a fixed term, extended from time to time and subsequently such extension having not been granted, it was not required to notice the workman, showing the grounds for non-extension of service, as the service automatically comes to an end on completion of the terms of engagement. The case of the workman being covered by Section 2(oo)(bb), Section 25F was not attracted in his case and thereby, there was no requirement for the employer to give him one month's notice nor retrenchment compensation as required under Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947.
4. In view of the aforesaid finding, neither the Award dated 18th December, 1995 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro in Reference Case No. 11 of 1990 can be sustained nor the order dated 30th September, 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 2186 of 1996(R) can be upheld. Both the Award and the order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The writ petition and the appeal preferred by the appellant are allowed.
5. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
D.K. Sinha, J.
6. I agree.