DISTRICT PROGRAMME CO-OORDINATOR, MAHILA SAMKHYA AND ANR. versus ABDUL KAREEM AND ANR.

Citation: [2008] 13 S.C.R. 677 · Decided: 18-09-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, CYRIAC JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 13 S.C.R. 677 
DISTRICT PROGRAMME CO-OORDINATOR, 
A 
MAHILA SAMKHYA AND ANR, 
v 
ABDUL KAREEM AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5815 of 2008) 
SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
s. 2(oo)(bb) - Driver engaged by a Society in a project- c 
Termination of his services - Reinstatement by Labour court 
- Affirmed by High Court - Held: It is not a case where termi-
nation of services of workman emanated from non-renewal of 
contract of employment - The Finding arrived at by Labour 
Court that the termination relying upon or based on a clause D 
of offer of appointment was camouflage, has been affirmed by 
High Court - However, it is not a case where reinstatement 
could be ordered, as the project itself has come to an end -
Since services of workman could be terminated at the end of 
tenure of project, instead of instatement, workman be paid a E 
sum of Rs.56,0001- as compensation for the remaining pe. 
riod. 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5815 
of 2008 
F 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 9.12.2005 and 
20.06.2006 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ 
Petition No. 27673 of 2000 (LITER) and Writ Appeal No. 130 
of 2006 (LITER) 
Naveen R. Nath, Lalit Mohini Bhat and Hetu Arora for the G 
Appellants. 
t 
Raja Venkatappa Naik, Raja Raghavendra Naik, R.K. 
Gupta and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the Respondents. 
677 
H 
678 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] '13 S.C.R. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
Delay condoned. 
Leave granted. 
8 
Mahila Samkhya, Karnataka, is a society registered un-
der the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. 
This society is engaged in various activities, like encour-
aging, assisting, promoting, decision making and encouraging 
group action by women as means of their empowerment and 
c equal participation in the process to bring about social changes 
and to empower the women. The activities of the said society is 
being carried out in the districts of Gulbarga, Bidar, Raichur, 
Bijapur, Bellary, Koppal and Mysore in the State of Karnataka. It 
has been receiving funds from the Government of Netherlands 
0 for the aforementioned activities. 
The services of respondent No.1 herein as a driver were 
hired by the appellants. He was initially appointed in the year 
1992 on fixed tenure basis. On or about 201h October, 1997, his 
services were again hired inter alia for the period 1.11.1997 to 
E 31.10.1999. Appellants were, however, entitled to terminate his 
services with 30 days notice on either side or by payment of 
compensation of one month's honorarium in lieu of notice. 
It is now not much in dispute that some acts of omission 
and commission on the part of the 1 •1 respondent were brought 
F to the notice of the authorities of the Society and some pur-
ported oral enquiry was conducted at Bangalore in connection 
with some vehicle bearing No. KA-39 M-42. 
By reason of a letter dated 3rd July, 1998, however, the 
G services of respondent No.1 were terminated in terms of para 
14 of the offer of appointment, stating: 
"Vide the above referred letter, you were appointed as a 
driver in MSK, Gulbcirga as per the terms and conditions 
mentioned therein. In accordance with para XIV of your 
H 
appointment letter, your services are no longer required in 
DIST. PROGRAMME CO-OORDINATOR, MAHILA 
679 
SAMKHYA & ANR. v. ABDUL KAREEM & ANR. 
this organization and hence your services are terminated A 
with immP.diate effect, i.e. with effect from 3.7.98 with one 
month notice in lieu of which you are being paid one 
month's honorarium." 
·An industrial dispute was raised by the 1 •1 respondent s· 
before the Labour Court at Gulbarga. Both the parties adduced 
their respective evidences before the Presiding Officer, Labour 
Court. Having regard to the deposition of Ms. Jyothi Kulkarni 
examined on behalf of the appellants as NW-1, the Labour Court 
opined: 
c 
"The main contention of the 2nd party is that the termination 
of the workman 1st party was only a termination simplicitor 
and the same cannot be disturbed by the Court. In this case 
the 2nd party has produced the letter dt. 3.7.98. Of course the 
said letter shows that the appointment was only temporary in 
nature. This statement as reflected in the letter cannot be D 
accepted. In fact the 1st party has produced before the court 
the letter issued by the establishment. The said letter issued 
by the officials of the 2nd party marked as W1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.