M/S. HARYANA STATE F.C.C.W. STORE LTD. AND ANR. versus RAM NIWAS AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 1151 · Decided: 08-07-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
MIS. HARYANA STATE F.C.C.W. STORE LTD. AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
RAM NIWAS AND ANR. 
JULY 8, 2002 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND K.G. BALAKRlSHNAN, JJ.] 
B 
labour la1-tis: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 2(00) and 25(j)-Appointment of 
Chowkidar!Watchman-For specified period/specified purpose-Termination- C 
Whether a1nounts to retrenchn1ent-Held, since contracts of service specified 
ter111s of and conditions and the disengagen1entlter1nination was in accordance 
therewith, it did not a111ount to retrench1nent-Thus provisions a/Section 25(j) 
not attracted. 
Appellant-Society had appointed respondents as Watchman/ 
Chowkidar on contract basis on payment of daily wages for watching and 
keeping care of the stock of grains lying in the open area till the stocks 
would be disposed of or for a period of three months. After clearance of 
D 
the stock of food grains, engagement of both the respondents was 
terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25(f) of the E 
Industrial Disputes Act. Respondents raised an industrial dispute which 
was referred to the Labour Court by the State Government. Labour Court 
came to the conclusion that workmen were not entitled to any relief since 
they were appointed for specific purpose and specific period only. 
Aggrieved, workmen challenged the award by filing Writ Petitions. High 
Court allowed the Writ Petitions and set aside the award. Hence these 
appeals. 
The question for determination in these appeals is whether on the 
facts and circumstances of the case the termination of service of the 
respondents amounts to 'retrenchment'. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. On a plain reading of the statutory provision, it is clear 
that any termination of service of a workman by the employer for any 
ll 5 I 
F 
G 
H 
) 
1152 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002) 3 S.C.R. 
A reason whatsoever comes within the meaning of the expression 
"" 
'retrenchment' as defined in Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 
The Section further provides certain exceptions vide Ss. 2(oo) (a) to 
2(oo)(c), to the wide and comprehensive definition of the term 
'retrenchment'. It follows, therefore, that ifthe case of termination of the 
B 
workman comes within any of the exceptions enumerated in the Section 
then the said termination will not be a case of 'retrenchment' within the 
... 
meaning of Section 2(00). 11155-C, GI 
Uptron India ltd. v. Shammi Bhan and Anr., 119981 6 SCC 538 and 
-I 
' 
Harmohinder Singh v. Kharga Canteen, Ambala Cantt. 12001 I 5 SCC 540, 
....... 
c referred to. 
2. In the present case, the Labour Court, relying on the oral and 
documentary evidence, held that the engagement/appointment of the 
workmen concerned was for a specific purpose and for a particular period 
and since the purpose f~r their engagement/appointment was over and the 
D period of appointment had expired, their disengagement was in terms of 
contract of service, and therefore, not a 'retrenchment' within the meaning 
of Section 2(oo) of the Act.11156-F, G, HI 
' 
~ 
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Labour Court rightly 
I-
came to the conclusion that the workmen were entitled to no relief in the 
E case. The High Court was clearly in error in interfering with the Award 
passed by the Labour Court. 11157-BI 
• 
; 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3645-46 of 
2002. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.9.2000 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in CWP Nos. 9471 and 9472 of 1999. 
Anil Mittal and Dharam Bir Raj Vohra, for the Appellants. 
' -
S.R. Sharma and S. Srinivasan for the Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D.P. MOHAPATRA, J. Leave is granted. 
... 
The question that arises for determination in these appeals is whether 
H on the facts and circumstances of the case the termination of service of the 
• 
-
HARYANA STATE r_c.c.w. STORE LTD. I'. RAM NIWAS lD r. MOHAPATRA, J.J 1153 
respondents is 'retrenchment' in terms of section 2(oo) of the Industrial A 
Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the ID Act') ?The further question that arises 
for consideration in this connection is whether section 2(oo)(bb) of the ID 
Act has any application in the case ? 
The factual matrix of the case relevant for considering the questions 
raised may be stated thus : 
In the year 1993 the appellants have been entrusted with the 
responsibility of procuring wheat and supply the same to Haryana Warehousing 
Corporation. On account of non-aVailability of godowns 

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