BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION versus SALIMBHAI UMARBHAI MANSURI

Citation: [2013] 8 S.C.R. 90 · Decided: 16-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 90 
BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION 
v. 
SALIMBHAI UMARBHAI MANSURI 
(Civil Appeal No. 5498 of 2013) 
JULY 16, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND 
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s.2(oo) rlw s.2(bb) and 
C ss. 25G and H - Respondent appointed as a helper in 
appellant-Corporation for two fixed periods - On expiry of the 
second term, service of respondent terminated - Labour Court 
held that appellant-Corporation had violated the provisions 
of ss. 25G and H and directed it to reinstate the respondent 
D with continuity in service with consequential benefits - Order 
upheld by High Court - On appeal, held: Labour Court as well 
as the High Court completely misunderstood the scope of 
s.2(oo), (bb}, as well as s.25G and H - Respondent had not 
worked continuously for 240 days in an year to claim the 
E benefit of s.25F, G and H - He had worked only for 54 days 
in two fixed periods and on expiry of the second term, his 
service stood automatically terminated on the basis of the 
contract of appointment - Specific terms of the contract 
indicated that the employment was shortclived and liable to 
F 
termination, on the fixed period mentioned in the contract -
There was no retrenchment under s.2(oo) rlw s.2(bb), 
consequently, s.25H did not apply - Award passed by the 
Labour Court and confirmed by the High Court accordingly 
set aside. 
G 
The respondent was appointed on daily wages as a 
helper in the appellant Corporation for two fixed periods 
from 02.05.1988 to 30.06.1988 and 04.07 .1988 to 
15.07 .1988. The service of the respondent stood 
terminated on 15.07 .1988 after serving a total period of 
H 
90 
BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. SALIMBHAI 
91 
UMARBHAI MANSURI 
1 54 days. The respondent raised an industrial dispute. The A 
Labour Court held that the appellant-Corporation had 
violated the provisions of Sections 25G and H of the 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and directed it to reinstate 
the respondent with continuity in service with 
consequential benefits. The order was upheld by the High B 
Court, and therefore the present appeals. 
The question which arose for consideration was 
whether termination of services of the respondent on the 
expiry of the contract period amounted to retrenchment 
within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial C 
Disputes Act, 1947. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Labour Court as well as the High Court 0 
have completely misunderstood the scope of Section 
2(00), (bb), as well as Section 25G and H of the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent had worked only for 
54 days in two fixed periods and on expiry of the second 
term, his service stood automatically terminated on the E 
basis of the contract of appointment. [Para 6] [94-F-H] 
2. The respondent had not worked continuously for 
240 days in an year to claim the benefit of Section 25F, G 
and H of the Act. [Para 7] [96-E] 
3. Section 2(bb) of the Act says that if the termination 
of the service of workman is as a result of non-renewal 
of the contract between the employer and the workman 
F 
on its expiry of such contract being terminated under a 
stipulation in that behalf contained therein, the same G 
would not constitute retrenchment. [Para 9] [97-C-D] 
4. The respondent's service was terminated on the 
expiry of the fixed periods mentioned in the office orders 
and that he had worked only for 54 days. The mere fact 
that the appointment orders used the expression "daily H 
92 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
wages" does not make the appointment "Casual" 
because it is the substance that matters, not the form. 
The contract of appointment consciously entered into by 
the employer and the employee, over and above the 
specific terms of the written agreement, indicates that the 
B employment is short-lived and the same is liable to 
termination, on the fixed period mentioned in the contract 
of appointment. [Para 10] [97-D-F] 
4. Section 25H will apply only if the respondent 
establishes that there had been retrenchment. There was 
C 
no retrenchment under Section 2(oo) read with Section 
2(bb) of the Act. Consequently, Section 25H would not 
apply to the facts of the case. [Para 12] [98-D] 
5. The Labour Court as well as the High Court have 
D not properly appreciated the factual and legal position in 
this case. The award passed by the Labour Court and 
confirmed by the High Court is set aside. [Para 13] [98-F] 
CIVIL APPEALLATE JU

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.