MANAGEMENT OF M.C.D. versus PREM CHAND GUPTA AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 403 · Decided: 16-12-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
MANAGEMENT OF M.C.D. 
A 
v. 
PREM CHAND GUPTA AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 16, 1999 
B 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ.) 
~ 
Service Law-Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1949-
. 
Rule 5 read with Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 2(oo) & 25F-
"' 
•' 
Scope and effect of-Services of respondent No. I terminated on April 29, c 
1966 as he had not completed 240 days of continuous service for one 
calendar year viz. April 1, 1965 to April 29, 1966-Held, termination was 
violative of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore 
the termination was null and void-Respondent reinstated in service with 
continuity of service and consequential benefits including increments and D 
revisions of time scale and further service benefits but with 50% hack wages. 
Delhi Municipal Corporation Service Regulations, 1959-Regulation 
4(1)-"Rulesfor the time being inforce"-Held, it means rules inforcefrom 
time to time and not rules in force at a fixed point of time-In the instant case 
"Rules" to mean amongst others, Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) E 
Rules, 1965. 
Services of Respondent No.1 who had been appointed with effect from 
May S, 1964, initially against a temporary post of Section Officer (Civil) and 
who continued in service without any break against different posts till April 
29, 1966 were terminated by the appellant Corporation. 
F 
The Labour Court where 'the respondent raised an industrial dispute 
held that the services of the respondent having been terminated by the 
~ 
appellant in exercise of its powers under Rule S of the Central Civil Services 
(Temporary Services) Rule 1949 and the said action of the appellant not 
being punitive in nature, the respondent was not entitled to any relief. It G 
further held that the termination could not also be covered under Section 
25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as his services were not terminated 
due to staff being in excess of the requirement of the Corporation. Single 
 
Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition assailing the aforesaid 
·decision of the Labour Court and confirmed the finding recorded by the Labour H 
403 
: 
404 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A Court holding that the termination was as per Rule 5of1949 Rules and also 
did not amount to any retrenchment as per Section 25F of _the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947. However, the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal 
allowed the appeal relying on this Court's decisjon in Senior Superintendent 
RMS, Cochin v. K. V. Gopinath, (1973) 3 SCC 867 taking the view that the 
termination was contrary to Rule 5 of 1949 Rules which is analogous to 
B Rule 5of1965 Rules. It did not examine whether the impugned termination 
was violative of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It directed 
reinstatement of the respondent in service with continuity and entitlement 
to r"eceive all salaries and allowances from the appellant. 
In appeal to this Court by the appellant Corporation, it was contended 
C among other grounds that the Division Bench was patently in error in relying 
upon the decision in Senior Superintendent RMS, Cochin v. K. V. Gopinath 
as the said decision was expressly over-ruled by treating it to be per incuriam 
by a later Bench in Union of India v. Arun Kumar Roy, [1986) l SCC 675; 
reference to 1949 Rules was not in order as it had been amended by 1965 
D Rules; it was not necessary to pay compensation simultaneously with the 
order of termination and it could be paid later on and the conditions of 
applicability of Section 25F were not fulfilled as the respondent was a 
temporary hand, not confirmed in service and the appointment was for a fixed 
period. 
E 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High 
Court suffers from a patent error of law as it had not noticed the amended 
provisions of the proviso of Rule 5 of 1965 Rules consequent to which its 
decision was treated to be per incuriam by the later decisions. 
F 
[413-D; 414-D) 
1.2. The phraseology "rules for the time being in force" would 
necessarily mean, rules in force from time to time and not rules in force 
only at a fixed point of time. (415-E) 
1.3. The termination of respondent from service on April 29, 1966 was 
G not violative of amended Rule 5 of 1965 Rules which only applied in his case. 
There was no obligation on the part of the appellant Corporation to 
simultaneously offer requisite

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