Writ petition by a terminated Field Worker challenging an Industrial Tribunal award that dismissed his retrenchment claim on grounds of temporary service under a scheme.
Conspicuous dismissal. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU
W.P. No. 13560 of 1995
DATED: 18.01.2010
Between:
R. Venkataramana .. Petitioner
And
1. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Addl.
2. The National Institute of Nutrition ..
O R D E R:-
The petitioner asserts that he was appointed as a Field Worker in the 2nd respondent-organization on 20.09.1982 and though he worked from 20.09.1982 till he was illegally terminated on 31.03.1986, and completed 240 days of his service, the 2nd respondent, passed the termination order, dated 13.02.1986 without issuing any notice and without following any procedure under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”). Challenging the order of termination, the petitioner filed I.D. No.33 of 1994 before the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad under Section 2A(2) of the Act, and the Tribunal passed the impugned Award dated 21.12.1994 dismissing the claim of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
A perusal of Award passed by the Tribunal clearly shows that after thoroughly considering the submissions made by both the parties and the evidence placed before it, it came to the conclusion that under Ex.M4 – order of appointment, the petitioner was appointed as Field Worker under a scheme, and his services were purely temporary and are co-terminus with the scheme, and under Exs.M5 and M6, though his appointment was for one year, his services were extended up to 31.03.1986 along with the scheme. The Tribunal also found that as the 2nd respondent did not receive funds to continue the scheme, it terminated the services of the petitioner from 31.03.1986. The Award further reveals that the case of the petitioner falls within the four
corners of Section 2(00)(bb) of the Act., and therefore, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that he was retrenched from service.
For the above reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the Award rejecting the claim of the petitioner, and it does not call for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits, and the same is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
C.V. RAMULU,
J 18th January, 2010 bcj
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the termination of the petitioner constituting a 'labour' did not amount to retrenchment under Section 2(00)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether the Additional Industrial Tribunal committed any error in concluding that the petitioner was not retrenched and in dismissing his claim.
Whether this Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Tribunal's award.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
R. Venkataramana
The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Addl. Labour Court, Hyderabad
The National Institute of Nutrition
C.V. RAMULU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
