Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 141 (HP)

Block Development Officer v. Yoginder Kumar

2008-04-05

RAJIV SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. A challenge has been laid by the employer to the Award dated 30.5.2005passed in Reference No. 176 of 2000 (RBT No. 297/84) by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala Camp at Dehra. 2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the State Government has made the following reference to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal: Whether termination of services of S/Shri Yoginder Kumar, Mahender Singh, Ranjeet Singh and Kesari Dass, Ex-daily wages beldars by Block Development Officer, Paragpur, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra H.P. w.e.f. 5/98 orally without any notice, charge-sheet, enquiry and without compliance of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, besides non-payment of legal dues, as alleged, is legal and justified? If not to what relief of service benefits and amount of compensation, the above aggrieved workman are entitled? 3. In sequel to the reference made by the State Government the respondent shere in after referred to as the workmen filed a statement of claim before the Labour Court primarily contending therein that they had worked on daily wages basis with effect from July, 1994 till May, 1998 and they were retrenched without following the mandatory provisions of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The employer resisted the claim by filing reply to the statement of claim. The case projected by the employer before the Labour Court was that the workmen were engaged on project known as Integrated Waste Land Development Project for Kangra District and no notice was required to be issued to them after the project has come to an end. The Labour Court on the basis of the evidence led by the parties answered the award in favour of the workmen as per the operative portion of the award. 4. Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had strenuously argued that the Labour Court had come to a wrong conclusion that the employment of the workmen was not in a project and they were required to be issued notice under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 at the time of effecting their retrenchment in the month of May, 1998. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, learned Counsel appearing for the workmen has supported the award dated 30.5.2005. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, learned Counsel appearing for the workmen has supported the award dated 30.5.2005. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. It is evident from the pleadings of the parties that the workmen were engaged on daily wages basis with effect from July, 1994. They were engaged on muster roll basis, The employer had not placed any material on record to suggest that the workmen were engaged in a particular project. If the workmen had been employed in a project it would have spelt out by issuing them a separate appointment letter informing them that their employment was co-terminus with the project or in the alternative even on the muster roll this fact that the employment is in project could be incorporated. The Labour Court has rightly observed that the Management had not placed any co-terminus record before it to suggest that the engagement of the workmen was in project. It was argued by Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria that the project has come to an end and was closed on 31.10.1997. However, it is evident from the pleadings of the parties that the workmen had been permitted to work till 31.3.1998. The fact of the matter is that the workmen were engaged in the month of July, 1994 and had worked continuously up to 31.3.1998. 6. In the absence of there being any evidence on record that the workmen were engaged in a project the findings recorded by the Labour Court that they were entitled to the protection under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot be faulted with. The Labour Court has come to a right conclusion that it was necessary for the employer to comply with provisions of Section 25(F) of the Act ibid since the workmen had continuously worked with effect from July, 1994 to 31.3.1998. It will be apt at this stage to observe that the workmen were disengaged on 30.4.1998. They have immediately raised demand notice. However, the Conciliation Officer had issued notice to the employer on 20.8.1999 for conciliation. Since the matter could not be resolved in conciliation the matter was referred to the appropriate Government vide letter dated 9.12.1999. The reference has been made by the State in the year 2000. They have immediately raised demand notice. However, the Conciliation Officer had issued notice to the employer on 20.8.1999 for conciliation. Since the matter could not be resolved in conciliation the matter was referred to the appropriate Government vide letter dated 9.12.1999. The reference has been made by the State in the year 2000. In view of this the consequential benefits granted to the workmen by the Labour Court need not be disturbed. 7. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court had occasion to go into the matter under what circumstances termination of services of a workmen engaged in the scheme or project may not amount to retrenchment in case S.M. Niljakar and Ors. v. Telecom, District Manager, Karnataka 2003 (97) FLR 608. Their Lordships haveheld as under: The termination of service of a workman engaged in a scheme or project may not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Sub-clause (bb) subject to the following conditions being satisfied: (i) that the workman was employed in a project or scheme of temporary duration; (ii) the employment was on a contract, and not as a daily-wager simplicitor, which provided inter alia that the employment shall come to an end on the expiry of the scheme or project; and (iii) the employment came to an end simultaneously with the termination of the scheme or project and consistently with the terms of the contract; (iv) the workman ought to have been apprised or made aware of the above said terms by the employer at the commencement of employment. 8. In the present case, there was no contract entered into by the employer with the workmen. The workman had not been put to notice at any stage in writing that their employment was in a Project. 9. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor any procedural irregularity in the award passed by the Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed and the award dated 30.5.2005 is upheld. 10. No order as to costs.