Delhi District Court
Vide Order No. ... vs Govt Of Nct Of on 16 July, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI UMED SINGH GREWAL
POLCXVII ROOM NO. 22 :KKD COURTS: DELHI
ID No.67/10/01.
Unique ID No.02402C0030672001
Deshbandhu College
Through its Principal,
Kalkaji, New Delhi.
............. Managements
And
Its workman
C/o SH. Diwakar Singh,
B999, Shastri Nagar, Delhi52.
..............Workman
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 04.07.2001.
DATE ON WHICH AWARD RESERVED : 14.07.2015.
DATE ON WHICH AWARD PASSED : 16.07.2015.
A W A R D :
1. Vide Order No. F.24(6172)/2001Lab./1280812 dated
22.06.2001, issued by Government of NCT of Delhi, a reference
was sent to this Court with the following terms:
"Whether the services of Sh. Diwakar Sharma have
been terminated illegally and / or unjustifiably by the
ID No.67/10/01. 1/12
management, and if so, to what directions are
necessary in this respect?"
2. Claimant's case is that he was appointed by the
management as a Clerk on 04.09.1992 for 4 months on adhoc
basis. He was again appointed on 05.09.1993 on adhoc basis as
Junior AssistantcumTypist with the responsibility of Cashier. He
was asked by the management vide letter dated 17.08.1998 to
appear for typing test and interview but was not selected and his
experience was also discarded. Aggrieved by the act of the
management, he had filed a writ petition No. 4497/98 before the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for regularization, but the same was
dismissed and he was granted liberty to approach the Hon'ble High
Court if he was aggrieved after the selection was over. Ultimately,
his services were terminated on 28.01.1999 in total violation to the
provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 though he had put
in service more than 6 years. He had sent a legal notice on
28.07.2000 for reinstatement, but it fell on deaf ears. Since
termination, he is idle.
3. Written statement is to the effect that the reference was
ID No.67/10/01. 2/12
sent by the GNCTD against Deshbandhu College through its
Principal but instead of impleading the said management in
statement of claim, the claimant impleaded the Principal who
himself is not more than an employee of the college. Other
objections are that appointment of the claimant was on adhoc basis
and for limited period and hence his case was covered under
Section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D. Act. After the term of his
appointment was over, the contract was not renewed and hence he
was shown the doors. Such act is not retrenchment and hence there
is no violation of provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act.
4. Following one issue was framed on 14.10.2005 :
1. As per terms of reference?
5. In order to substantiate the case, the claimant tendered
his affidavit in evidence as Ex. WW1/A mentioning all the facts
stated in statement of claim. He deposed that he was appointed by
the management as Clerk on 04.09.1992 vide appointment letter
Ex. WW1/1 in the grade of Rs.9501500 per month with extra
allowances of Rs.50/ per month. His services were extended for a
period of four months vide letter Ex. WW1/2. The services were
ID No.67/10/01. 3/12
again extended for further period vide letter Ex. WW1/3 dated
05.05.1993. He continued doing job with the management and his
service was again extended vide letter Ex. WW1/4 dated
09.09.1993. In the meantime, he kept on requesting the
management to regularize his services vide several letter like Ex.
WW1/4A dated 08.09.1993. He further deposed his service was
further extended for four months vide letter Ex.WW1/5 dated
30.12.1993. In the same way, his service was further extended vide
letters Ex. WW1/6, Ex. WW1/7, Ex. WW1/8, Ex. WW1/9, Ex.
WW1/10, Ex. WW1/11, Ex. WW1/12, Ex. WW1/13, Ex. WW1/14,
Ex. WW1/15. He further deposed that there were certain other
employees also who were working with the management on adhoc
basis. The union took up their matter regarding regularization but
the demand fizzled out. The management had asked him vide letter
dated 17.08.11998 to appear for typing test and for interview on
04.09.1998. He appeared in the test and the interview, but he was
not selected. He had filed civil writ petition No.4497/98 in the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for regularization of service but the
same was dismissed. Instead of giving preferential treatment, his
services were terminated vide letter dated 28.01.1999 against which
he sent a legal demand notice Ex. WW1/18 to the management.
ID No.67/10/01. 4/12
6. Management examined its Principal Mr. A.P. Rastey
as MW1, who deposed that claimant was initially appointed as a
Clerk on adhoc basis vide letter dated 04.09.1992 for a period of
one month. The claimant was well aware that his services were
temporary in nature and were liable to be terminated without
assigning any reason and chargesheet. Those terms and conditions
of appointment were accepted by him and thereafter he joined the
job. He further deposed that claimant was made aware that his
services were based on the requirement and as and when there was
no requirement, his service would come to an end. He further
deposed that the claimant never completed 240 days of services in a
calender year. He was lastly appointed by the management vide
letter dated 09.09.1998 and his services came to end on 28.01.1999
due to efflux of time.
ISSUE NO. 1.
7. Ld. ARW argued that the claimant had joined the
management on 04.09.1992 initially for four months but his term of
contract was extended every time by the management and it
ID No.67/10/01. 5/12
continued till 28.01.1999 when he was shown the doors
unceremoniously. He submitted that any person who had
completed 240 days with the management was not required to be
fired in that manner and rather, the management was required
comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, which it
ignored totally. In support, he relied upon the following cases:
1. Sabharwal Food Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Govt of NCT of
Delhi, 2008 (101) DRJ page NO.43 to 46
2. Director, Fisheries Terminal Division Vs. Bhukbhai
Meghajibhai Chavda, 2009 15, AddlSCR 761.
3. Kishan Singh Vs. Executive Engineer, HSAMB, Rohtak,
AIR 2010 SC (supply) 787.
Ld. ARM argued that it is the case of the claimant in
statement of claim itself that initially that he was appointed only for
four months on adhoc basis vide appointment letter Ex. WW1/1.
He was freshly appointed on 05.09.1993 vide appointment letter
Ex. WW1/2. The last extension was given on 09.09.1998. That
extension came to end on 28.01.1996 due to efflux of time. He
further submitted that appointment of the claimant was purely
temporary in nature and for limited period and hence his service
was terminated as per the provisions of Section 2(oo) (bb) of the
ID No.67/10/01. 6/12
I.D. Act, which does not amount to retrenchment and hence the
management was not bound to give any compensation to the
claimant.
8. As per first appointment letter Ex. WW1/1, the
claimant was appointed as a Clerk on adhoc basis only for four
months. His services were extended from time to time.
Appointment letter dated 07.04.1995 Ex. WW1/9 makes it clear
that his appointment was purely on adhoc basis from 07.05.1995 to
06.08.1995. It is further mentioned in that letter that his service
was liable to be terminated on earlier occasion at any time with 24
hours notice without assigning any reason. To the same effect are
other appointment / extension letters Ex. WW1/10, Ex. WW1/11,
Ex. WW1/12, Ex. WW1/13, Ex. WW1/14, Ex. WW1/15.
9. In Sabharwal Food Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the
facts were that the driver / workman had completed 240 days of
service with the management and Hon'ble High held that the
management cannot terminate his service without conducting any
enquiry. It is pertinent to mention that version of the management
ID No.67/10/01. 7/12
was that the worker had abandoned the job. Facts of the present
case are totally different from the cited case and hence that law is
not applicable.
Director, Fisheries Terminal Division (supra) and
Krishan Singh (supra) are the cases relating to termination of
service of daily wagers. In those cases, the workers were granted
the relief of reinstatement. The Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the
decision of the Labour Court. Obviously, the above two cases were
not the case under section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D. Act. Moreover,
their appointment was not on adhoc. So the citations are not
applicable on the facts of this case.
10. In Vidya Vardhaka Sangha and another Vs. Y.D.
Deshpande and other, 2006 LLR 1233, the facts were that the
worker was appointed on probation / adhoc basis for a specific
period of time. After ending of that period, the services of the
claimant came to end automatically. Hon'ble Apex Court held that
his services had come to end by efflux of time and that any person
holding any such post can have no right to continue on post. It
further observed that the termination was as per the term of
ID No.67/10/01. 8/12
appointment letter which they had accepted at the time of joining of
the job. It further held that workers cannot be allowed to turn back
and say that they could not be terminated on the basis of
appointment letter.
In the case in hand also, the terms and conditions in
appointment letter are that the appointment of the claimant was
purely on adhoc basis and that his services were liable to be
terminated on earlier occasion at any time with 24 hours notice
without assigning any reason. So, that citation squarely covers the
present case.
In New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Anil Kumar
Gupta & Anr. 2006 LLR 1246, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held
that if for some exigency adhoc or contractual appoints are
made,Tribunal and Court should not by their orders continue
contractual or adhoc employees whose services are not required by
the department. The Hon'ble High Court further held that court
should encourage only regular appointments as per law, mandate of
Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case.
In Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Darbara Singh,
2006 LLR 68, the Apex Court held that law relating to fixed
ID No.67/10/01. 9/12
appointments and scope and ambit of section 2(oo) (bb) and 25F of
the Act was clear that appointment of the worker was for specific
period and conditional and hence relief granted to him by the
Labour Court and the High Court should not be sustained.
In Ram Kishan & Anr. Vs. The Management of M/s.
American Express Banking Corporation & Anr., 2009 LLR 1174,
the facts were that workers were engaged by the management for a
fixed period of three years. The contracts were renewed for a
specific period. After expiry of period, their contract was not
renewed. Their case was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court
because their fixed term appointments were excluded by the
definition of retrenchment under Section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D. Act.
11. In the case in hand also, service of the claimant were
extended from time to time. His last extension was on 09.09.1998
upto 28.01.1999. After 28.01.1999, the contract was not further
renewed and hence services of the claimant came to end on
28.01.1999 due to efflux of time and due to nonrenewal of the
contract. So, the case is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the
I.D. Act.
ID No.67/10/01. 10/12
Moreover, writ petition No. 4497/98 of the claimant
for regularization was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi with following observations:
"I am afraid that the case cited by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is of no
help to him. A person, who has been
working on temporary or ad hoc basis, may
have a preferential right for consideration
for consideration for selection but in view of
the recruitment rules of the respondent,
straightaway petitioner's services cannot be regularised on the basis of ad hoc service.
Dismissed.
However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to move this court in case he is aggrieved after the selection is made." The management had conducted typing test and interview. It has been admitted by the claimant that he had appeared for test and interview, but he was not selected. It has been deposed by MW1 in cross examination that some adhoc / casual employees were selected and regularized in the year 1999. The claimant was not selected in that selection process.
Relief ID No.67/10/01. 11/12
12. Consequent to decision on issue No. 1, it is held that claimant is not entitled to any relief. Statement of claim is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. The reference is answered accordingly.
13. The requisite number of copies be sent to the Govt. of NCT of Delhi for publication of the award. File be consigned to record room.
Dictated to the Steno & announced (UMED SINGH GREWAL) in the open Court on 16.07.2015. POLCXVII/KKD, DELHI. ID No.67/10/01. 12/12