Dismissed

Shesha Ram v. Alcobex Metals Ltd. and Anr.

Rajasthan HC13 Apr 2015SAW/449/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil special appeal, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal against a single judge's dismissal of a retrenchment claim. The court distinguished the instant case from a cited precedent, holding that the workman was made under a fresh appointment rather than an extension of service.

What did the court decide?

Reinstatement with back wages was denied; appeal against the single judge's judgment was dismissed.

Shesha Ram Vs Alcobex Metals Ltd. and Anr. — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.449/2011

¶3

Shesha Ram

¶4

Vs.

¶5

Alcobex Metals Limited, Jodhpur & Anr.

¶6

DATE OF ORDER : 13.4.2015

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

¶8

Mr. R.S. Saluja, for the appellant

¶9

The Appropriate Government under its notification dated 25.6.1992 referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication to the Labour Court, Jodhpur in the terms that “Whether the Management, Alcobex Private Limited, 24-25, Heavy Industrial Area, Jodhpur was right in terminating its workman Shri Sesa Ram S/o. Shri Jodha Ram, Turner from service w.e.f. 05-1-1989? If not, then for what relief and amount the workman is entitled?”.

¶10

A claim of statement then was filed by the workman stating therein that he entered in service of employer on 4.8.1986 as casual labour. Subsequent to it, the Factory Manager by an order dated 7.1.1987 gave him appointment on contract basis for a period of two years. The employer on 4.1.1989 terminated the workman from service without assigning any reason and further without giving him any notice or compensation in lieu thereof. The statement of claim was supported by an affidavit sworn-in by the workman himself.

¶11

The employer filed a written statement to the claim with assertion that the appointment of the workman was contractual for

¶12

¶13

a fixed term, therefore, his termination from service is not a retrenchment in light of Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947').

¶14

The Labour Court after considering the entire evidence adduced by the parties arrived at the conclusion that the workman was terminated on 4.1.1989 from service i.e. 02 days prior to expiry of the term of appointment, as such, the termination was not as a consequent to completion of the contractual term, hence amount to retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the Act of 1947. Accordingly, a direction was given to the employer to re-instate the workman in service with 50% of back wages.

¶15

The employer assailed validity of the award passed by the Labour Court by way of filing a petition for writ, that came to be acepted by the judgment impugned dated 14.1.2010. The learned Single Judge arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner was very much aware of the contents of the order dated 7.1.1987 giving him appointment for a fixed term on contract basis, as such, his termination was in accordance with the conditions of contract and, therefore, that was not a retrenchment. To question correctness of the judgment impugned dated 14.1.2010, this appeal is preferred.

¶16

The argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that at the first instance appointment was given to the appellant-petitioner as Turner on 4.8.1986 and during currency of services, an order dated 7.1.1987 was passed and the petitioner was terminated from

¶17

¶18

service on 4.1.1989. The grant of fixed term appointment under the order dated 7.1.1987 is required to be treated as extension of service and not a fresh appointment, therefore, the termination of the petitioner was nothing but a retrenchment. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gajraj Vs. Rajasthan Agriculture University on 6.8.1993 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.555/1992. In the case of Gajraj, appointment was given to the petitioner as a Casual Labour and his services were extended time to time for fixed term for several years. The learned Division Bench arrived at the conclusion that the extension was given only to frustrate the rights those would have been created in favour of the workman, who otherwise was allowed to continue in service for about a decade.

¶19

In our considered opinion, in the instant case no extension has been given, but a fresh appointment was accorded to the petitioner after interviewing him by a competent officer, that too, by acting upon his own application, as such, the law laid down in the case of Gajraj (supra) is having no application in the instant matter.

¶20

It is not in dispute that by order dated 7.1.1987 appointment was given to the petitioner on contract basis and he was dis-continued from service on 4.1.1989. At the most the petitioner's case may be that his term of appointment was to expire on 6.1.1989, as such, his termination from service on 4.1.1989 is breach of contract and for that he may claim damages from the

¶21

¶22

employer but not re-instatement in service. In view of it, we don't find any wrong with the findings arrived by the learned Single Bench, hence the appeal is dismissed.

¶23

[JAISHREE THAKUR], J. [GOVIND MATHUR], J.

¶24

Sanjay

Shesha Ram v. Alcobex Metals Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shesha Ram v. Alcobex Metals Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.and Ors. Vs Manoj Kumar Adopted

Ishwar Singh Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Kheta Ram Meena Vs the Commandant, 12 Bn.Rac I.R. and Ors.

The Assi. Commissioner, Vs State and Anr.

Kailash Chandra Sharma Vs State and Ors.

Abhishek Bardia Vs Jai Narayan Vyas University Jod., and Anr.