M.D., KARNATAKA HANDLOOM DEV. CORPN. LTD. versus SRI MAHADEVA LAXMAN RAVAL

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 60 · Decided: 16-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M.D., KARNATAKA HANDLOOM DEV. CORPN. LTD. 
v. 
SRI MAHADEV A LAX.MAN RAV AL 
NOVEMBER 161 2006 
B 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-ss.2(00) & 25F-Appointmentfor specific 
period on specified honorarium-Termination of services on expiry of such 
C specific period-Held, does not amount to retrenchment-Since appointment 
was only on contract basis. 
Respondent was engaged under a time bound specific scheme sponsored 
by Appellant-Corporation as a weaving trainer on a specified honorarium. 
D 
The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is 
whether Respondent was not a worker for purposes ofS.25F of the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 194.7 but was employed on contract basis for a specific period 
and hence cannot be said to have been retrenched after his services were 
discontinued pursuant to expiry of such specific period. 
E 
Allowing the appe~I, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. A careful perusal of the terms and conditions of appointment 
of Respondent would go to show that he is not a worke.r but employed on 
contract basis on a time bound specific scheme assigned as weaving trainer. 
The High Court has failed to notice that the respondent was engaged on 
F contract basis and had been assigned to train weavers who were lagging in 
weaving skills in the weaving potential development area working on time 
specific short term scheme sponsored by the Appellant-Corporation. 
Therefore the respondent is not a worker for the purposes of Section 25F of 
the Industrial Disputes Act but employed on contract basis only. As the 
respondent was engaged as trainer for a specific period under the scheme 
G and was paid a stipend ofRs.I,000/- p.m. from the date of his appointment 
and, therefore, Section 2(oo) of the Act is not attracted soon after the expiry 
of the specific period the respondent's service was discontinued and so it is 
not a retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act. (67-C-FI 
H 
60 
) 
M.D., KARNAT AKA HANDLOOM DEV. CORPN. LTD.'" SRI MAHADEVA LAXMAN RA VAL 
61 
1.2. The appointment letters produced by the Respondent consistently A 
and categorically state that the respondent's appointment with the Corporation 
was purely contractual for a fixed period. The respondent was engaged_ only 
under the Vishwa programme scheme which is not in existence. Now that the 
scheme came to an end during August, 1994, the respondent was also not 
governed by any service rules of the Corporation. The Corporation put an 
end to the contract w.e.f. 31.08.1993 which cannot be termed as dismissal B 
from service. Even assuming that the respondent had worked 240 days 
continuously he cannot claim that his services should be continued because 
the number of 240 days does not apply to the respondent inasmuch as his 
services were purely contractual. The termination of his contract, does not 
amount to retrenchment and, therefore, it does not attract compliance of C 
Section 25F of the I.D. Act at all. (68-A-CI 
1.3. The respondent was engaged only on contract basis. It is only a 
seasonal work and, therefore, the respondent cannot be said to have been 
retrenched in view of what is stated in clause (bb) of Section 2( oo) of the Act. 
172-El D 
S.M Nilajkar & Ors. v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka, (2003( 4 
sec 27, distinguished. 
Kishore Chandra Sama/ v. Orissa State Cashew Development 
Corporation limited Dhenkanal, (2006) 1 SCC 253, relied on. 
Marinda Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ram Kishan & Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 
653; Anil Bapurao Kanase v. Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. & Anr., 
[1997] 10 SCC 599; Secretary, State of Karnataka Batala Coop. Sugar Mills 
Ltd. v. Sowaran Singh, (2005) 8 SCC 481 and Range Forest Officer v. S. T. 
Hadimani, (2002) 3 SCC 25, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3251 of2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4-12-2003 of the High Court of 
Karnataka at Bangalore in W.A. No. 2016/2000 (L-TER). 
E 
F 
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, B.K. Choudhary, Vikas Rojipura and E.C. Vidya G 
Sagar for the Appellant. 
Mrs. Rajani K. Prasad and C.V. Subba Rao for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
62 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Karnataka Handloom Development 
Corporation Limited is the appellant in this appeal. The appellant-Corporation 
is a Public Sector Enterprise established by the Karnataka State Government 
to promote and assist the growth and devel
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.