Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The reference was contested by the petitioner contending that the regular Sweeper Mohd. Kasim went on leave and the work of department was suffering, consequently, on the said post, the respondent was appointed as Sweeper on temporary basis in pay scale of Rs.750/- to 940/-. The service of the respondent was terminated on joining of Mohd. Kasim. It was further pleaded that on retirement of Mohd. Kasim on 31.03.1990, the respondent was again appointed for a period from 15.05.1990 to 20.07.1990 which was extended from time to time with break and lastly, it was extended from 30.06.1990 to 31.03.1992. It was further pleaded that a letter was written to the Director, Industries on 13.12.1991 for appointment of respondent but the Director, Industries by letter dated 06.10.1992 informed that several schemes of the department had been finished and, therefore, the regular appointment on any post was not allowed. The petitioners also stated that as per terms and conditions of appointment, nature of appointment of the respondent was purely temporary and his service could be terminated at any point of time without any prior notice. The petitioners also contended that the reference is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioner is a department of State of U.P. which is governed by rules and regulations of State of U.P. and is not engaged in any job of profit and hence, it is not an industry.

20. In this regard it would be apposite to notice undisputed facts in the case at this stage. It is admitted by the respondent that his appointment was for a short period on temporary basis. The appointment of the respondent was on a post which had fallen vacant due to medical leave taken by regular employee Mohd. Kasim and the service of the respondent was terminated after Mohd. Kasim joined the service.

21. The respondent was again appointed for a short term on temporary basis on account of vacancy which came into existence due to retirement of Mohd. Kasim, the appointment of the respondent was for a fixed term as it is manifest from the record that the respondent could not be appointed on permanent basis as the Director, Industries had written a letter banning any fresh appointment. In this view of these facts though the respondent had completed 240 days in a calender year and the termination of service of the respondent without complying with Section 6 N of the Act, 1947 may be illegal, but whether in the facts of the present case, the labour court was justified in directing the reinstatement of the respondent with full back wages is a question which needs to be considered on the basis of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in various pronouncements relied upon by the counsel for both the parties.