LexKISHORE CHANDRA SAMAL versus THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER. ORISSA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. DHENKANAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- KISHORE CHANDRA SAMAL v. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER. ORISSA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. DHENKANAL NOVEMBER 17, 2005 [ARIJITPASA YAT AND R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] A B Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 2(oo)(bb) and 25-F- Retrenchment-Termination of workman appointed for a ftxed period, after C expiry of said period-Held: Does not amount to retrenchment. Appellant was appointed for fixed ·f>erioos from time to time. When no further extension was given, his service automatically ceased. Alleging that refusal of work amounted to retrenchment, he raised Industrial dispute. Labour Court held that-termination of·his'•service was illegal and directed his D reinstatement~ Higl:tFCourt'fleld'that since'the engagements were for fixed period, award of the Labour Court was to be set aside. Hence the present appeal Dismissing the appeal, the Court - HELD: The respondents cannot be said to have been retrenched in view E of what is stated in clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of'the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the instant case in all the orders of engagement, specific periods have been mentioned. Therefore, the High Court's order does not suffer from any infirmity. [297-C] S.M Nilaikar and Ors. v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka [2003) F 4 sec 27, held inapplicable. Morinda Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd v. Ram Kishan and Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 653; Anil Bapurao Kanase v. Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Anr., (1997] 10 SCC 599 and Batala Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd v. Sowaran Singh, (2005) 7 Supreme 165, relied on. 0 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5458 of2004. From the Judgment and Order dated 22.1.2003 of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C. No. 9152of1998. 293 H 294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A Ramesh Chandra Pandey for the Appellant. Janaranjan Das and Swetaketu Mishra for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court setting aside the award of Labour Court, Bhubaneswar dated 29.10.1997 passed in l.D. Case No.90 of 1994 which directed the appellant-Corporation to reinstate the present appellant with full back wages. C Factual background in a nutshell is as under:- The case of the appellant was that he was appointed as Junior Typist . on N .M.R. basis by the respondent~ with effect from 12. 7 .1982. He continued in the said post for more than one year. All of .a sudden another order was issued appointing him for 44 days with effect fr:om 1.10.1983. On its expiry on D 15.11.1983 another appointment order was issued ,on. .. 5.12.1983 for a fixed period·giving effect from 16 .. 1 l..!f.18~. Thereafter, he was allowed to continue for about 8 months. Later.,be was appoinrep on ad hoc basis in the usual scale of pay ofRs.255-5-285-EB-7-306-12-390/- with effect from 23.7.1985. Thereafter without any rhyme or reason, he we¥.i again kept in N.M.R. on payment of E Rs. I 0/- per day for a period of 90 days from 1.12.1985 to 28.2.1986. Thereafter he was allowed to continue from 29.6.1986 to 25.9. I 986 and further from 27.9.1986 to 24.12.1986. Thereafter, he was allowed to continue without any break till 11.8.1989. Alleging that refusal of work beyond 11.8.1989 amounting · to retrenchment, he raised dispute giving rise to the above reference. F The respondent's case before the Labour Court was that the appellant G was working on N.M.R. basis as a Typist with effect from 12.7.1982. He was appointed for a specific period on daily wage basis. On consideration of the representation for further enga~ement and having regard to the requirement, he was engaged again and again on daily wage basis for specific period. The last order of appointment on N.M.R. basis was issued. to him on 28.4.1989. Thereafter no further extension was given. Thereafter, his service automatically ceased and it is not a case of retrenchment. The Labour Court on perusal of the evidence on record held that the· appellant served continuously for many years covering the requisite period H of continuous service in a calendar year. Although there is no evidence that - KJSHORECHANDRASAMAL ,._DIV. MAN.ORISSA STATE CASHEW DEV. CORPN. LTD. [PASAYAT.J.] 295 the post of Typist was a permanent one, he was engaged from time to time A and at the time of termination as the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.