Gujarat State Handicraft and Handloom Development Corp. Ltd. vs Bharatkumar V. Singharakhiya

M.R. Shah, J.—By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner-Gujarat State Handicrafts and Handloom Development Corporation Ltd., has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and award dated 18.10.2001 passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot passed in Reference (LCR) No. 419 of 1993 by which the Labour Court has directed the Petitioner to reinstate the Respondent without back wages but with continuity of service.

It is not in dispute that Respondent was appointed on fixed term as a quality controller for a period of one year under the scheme sponsored by the Central Government w.e.f. 20.8.1991 and on completion of the period of one year he was relieved w.e.f. 20.8.1992. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the above, the Respondent raised an industrial dispute which was referred to Labour Court, Rajkot which was numbered as Reference (LCR) No. 419 of 1993. Though, it was the specific case on behalf of the Petitioner that the case would be governed by Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the appointment of the Respondent was on a fixed term and was under the project sponsored by the Central Government and that the said project has been closed, the Labour Court by impugned judgment and award directed the Petitioner to reinstate the Respondent on the ground that there is a breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the Petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Shri Chauhan, learned advocate for Shri Munshaw, learned advocate for the Petitioner has vehemently submitted that the learned Labour Court has materially erred in holding that there is a breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is submitted that as such the case would be governed by Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that too appointment of the Respondent was on fixed period of one year under the project sponsored by the Central Government and on completion of one year the project was closed, the Respondent was relieved. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is submitted that as such the case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of J.J. Shrimali v. District Development Officer, Mehsana and Ors. reported in 1989 (2) GLH 12. It is further submitted that in fact the very Respondent submitted the application to the Petitioner dated 9.10.1992 (Annexrue B to the petition) by which the Respondent requested to extend the period of contract for a further period of one year. Therefore, even the Respondent admitted that his appointment was contractual. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present Special Civil Application.

Petition is opposed by Shri Pankaj Desai, learned advocate for the Respondent workman. It is submitted that as such in the written statement there was no reference to the Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the contention on behalf of the Petitioner that the case would be governed u/s 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act shall not be permitted to be raised by the Petitioner. It is further submitted that even other persons were also continued subsequently and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court has not committed any error and/or illegality in directing the Petitioner to reinstate the Respondent without back wages. Shri Desai, learned advocate for the Respondent workman has relied upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Shailendra Natha Shukla and Ors. v. Vice Chancellor, Allahabad University and Ors. reported in 1987 Lab.IC 1607 as well as the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of The Madhya Pradesh Bank Karmachari Sangh v. Syndicate Bank and Anr. reported in 1996 Lab I.C. 1161. By making above submissions and relying upon above decisions, it is requested to dismiss the present Special Civil Application.

Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and it is not in dispute that appointment of the Respondent was on a fixed term for one year w.e.f. 20.8.1991, that too on a scheme sponsored by the Central Government. On completion of one year the Respondent came to be relieved w.e.f. 20.8.1992 and on discontinuation of project sponsored by the Central Government and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the case would be governed by Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act as the appointment of the Respondent was a contractual appointment for a fixed term and on a particular project. It is required to be noted that even after the Respondent was relieved on completion of one year the very Respondent submitted the application before the Petitioner on dated 9.10.1992 (Annexrue B to the petition) requesting to extend his contract for a further period of one year. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and considering the decision of this Court in the case of J.J. Shrimali (Supra) the Labour Court has committed an error and/or illegality in holding that the termination of the Respondent was in breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. As the case would be governed by Section 2(oo)(bb), the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court holding that there is a breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be sustained and consequently the order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained and same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Now, so far as the decision relying upon by the learned advocate for the Respondent referred to herein above is concerned, none of the decisions would be applicable to the facts of the present case and/or the same would not be of any assistance to the Respondent. In the case before the Madhya Pradesh High Court it was found that the workman was initially appointed for fixed term however his service tenure as extended thereafter from time to time and it was specifically found that nothing was on record that work had ended. Similarly in the case before the Allahabad High Court also it was found that the workman was found to be employed as a daily wagers on contract basis having nearly 5 years service.

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, petition succeed and the impugned judgment and award dated 18.10.2001 passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot passed in Reference (LCR) No. 419 of 1993 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No costs.