HARMOHINDER SINGH versus KHARGA CANTEEN, AMBALA CANTT.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 796 · Decided: 09-07-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

II· 
A 
HARMOHINDER SINGH 
v. 
KHARGA CANTEEN, AMBALA CANTT. 
"' 
JULY 9, 2001 
B 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
labour laws: 
~· 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 9A, 25-F and 25-J-Temporary 
c employee-Amendment of Standing Orders subsequent to appointment 
stipulating 15 years as maximum permissible .service-Termination of 
employee ~s per the amendment-Validity of-Held, amendment to Standing 
Orders is binding on the employee-Hence, termination of service is valid. 
D 
Appellant was appointed as a temporary employee of respondent-canteen 
in June 1974 and he was governed by the Standing Orders of the respondent. 
In 1988, the Standing Orders were amended stipulating 15 years as the 
. 
. 
. 
-
maximum permissible service for a temporary employee. Accor~ingly, the 
services of the appellant were terminated in June 1989 on completion of 15. 
years of service and the appellant raised an industrial dispute. On reference 
E by State Government, Labour Court rejected the claim of the respondent and 
held that the amended Standing Orders were binding on the appellant and the 
termination of the appellant's service after a period of 15 years was valid. 
The appellant filed a Writ Petition before High Court, which was dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that his appointment 
F under the Standing Orders w.as permanent and not temporary; and that the 
amendment in the Standing Orders was violative of Sections 9A, 25-F and 
25-J of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
The respondent contended that the amended Standing Orders were 
. G 
intimated and accepted by the appellant; that the services were terminated in 
accordance with the Standing Orders; and that no provision of the Act had 
been violated in the termination of the services of the appellant. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The conditions of service under the Fourth Schedule of the 
H 
796 
llARMOHINDER SINGl-l r. KHARGA CANTEEN, AM BALA CANTT. 
797 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for change of which notice is to be given under A 
Section 9A of the act, does not include the subject matter of the amendment 
in the Standing Orders of the respondent, namely, the fixation of period of 
service or tbe date of retirement. There is nothing on record to show that 
prior to the introduction of the amendment in the Standing Orders of the 
respondent, the workmen of the canteen continued as a matter of right till 
they reached the age of superannuation, which are applicable to Government B 
servants. The introduction ofa· maximum period of service cannot be said to 
be in operate to the deteriment of the employee who was otherwise entitled to 
serve only for six months and was liable to be dismissed merely upon service 
of a month's notice. Though the stipulation of maximum permissible service 
had been held to be unconstitutional in Uptron India Ltd. the same principle C 
would not apply to the appellant who was not serving iii or under the 
Government or any government controlled institution. It was not necessary, 
therefore, to give any notice to the appellant under Section 9A of the Act before 
introducing the amendment in the Standing Orders by the respondent. 
1801-C-El D 
Uptron India ltd. v. Sha1?1mi Bhan, [ 1998) 6. SCC 538, distinguished. 
Salem-Erode Electricity Distribution Co. (p) ltd. v. Their Employees' 
Union, AIR (1966) SC 808; Agra Electric Supply Company ltd. v. Alladin & 
Ors., (1969) 2 LLJ 540; Dunlop India ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1972) 2 LLJ l; 
Balbir Singh v. Kurukshetra Central Coop. Bank ltd. & Anr., (1990) 1 LLJ E 
443 and Wormen v. Hindustan lever ltd., (1973) 1 LLJ 427, referred to. 
1.2. Section 25-F of the Act would not apply to the amendment in the 
Standing Orders as the definition of retrenchment in Section 2 (oo) (bb) of 
the Act expressly excludes termination of contracts of service of a fixed term. 
The principles of natural justice are not applicable where the termination F 
takes place on the expiry of the contract. 1801-G-H; 802-A-B) 
Up tr on India Ltd v. Sham mi Bhan, It 998) 6 SCC 538, relied on. 
1.3. Section 25-J of Act provides that the provisions of Chapter V-A of 
the Act would have overriding effect irrespective of any other law including G 
Standing Order made under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) 
Rules 1956. There is no provision in Chapter V-A of the Act which pertains 
to the period of service of an employee. Consequently section 25-A has no 
application. 1802-
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.