MICROWAVE PROJECT, KOTA AND ANR. versus RAMESH CHAND

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 403 · Decided: 18-07-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MICROWAVE PROJECT, KOTA AND ANR. 
A 
-": 
v. 
RAMESH CHAND 
JUL y 18, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
~ 
Industrial Disputes Act. 1947: 
~ 
ss. 25-F and 2(oo){bb)---Casual labourer appointed for spt!cific project 
and on completion of work relieved from job-Tribunal and High Court held c 
that his termination was bad as there was violation of mandatory requirement 
of s.25-F-On appeal, held: Question of applicability of s. 25-F dependent 
upon the basic question relating to applicability of s. 2(oo){bb)-That aspect 
lost sight of-Matter remitted to tribunal. 
The respondent was engaged as a casual labourer for a specific project D 
-\ 
by the appellants. After completion of the work and commissioning of the 
4-
project, respondent was relieved from his job. The office of the appeilants was 
also abolished as there was no need of work. Respondent raised dispute 
challenging his termination. 
The Industrial Tribunal held that since the respondent worked for 240 E 
days in the establishment of the appellant, his termination was bad as there 
was violation of the mandatory requirements of s. 25-F of the Industrial 
Disputes Act. Removal from service amounted to retrenchment under s. 2(oo) 
and ordered reinstatement ltith 30% back wages. High Court upheld the order. 
Hence the present appeal. 
F 
r 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the tribunal, the Court 
HELD: The Tribunal failed to consider the issue in proper perspective. 
The effect of s. 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been 
completely lost sight of. There was no dispute that the employment was for a G 
specific project There was no discussion of the various materials produced 
before the Tribunal. The orders of the High Court proceeded on the basis 
~ 
that because there was non-compliance with the requirement ofs. 25-F, the 
Award was justified. The question of the applicability of s. 25-F of the Act 
would be dependent upon the basic question relating to applicability of 
403 
H 
404 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 8 S.C.R. 
,I 
A s.2(oo)(bb) of the Act. That aspect has been lost sight of. (Para 6) (405-E, F) 
-t-~ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2851 of2005. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 04.02.2004 of the High Court of 
Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 
B 194 of2000 with D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 1155 of2000 in S.B. 
Civil Writ Petition No. 4276 of 1999. 
,. 
V.K. Shukla, A.K. Tripathi and K.K. Mohan for the Appellants. 
+ 
Ajay Choudhary for the Respondent. 
c 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. I. Challenge in this appeal is to the order 
passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, 
dismissing the special leave filed by the appellant. 
D 
. 
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
+ 
Respondent was engaged as a casual labourer by the Assistant Engineer 
of the Microwave Project Borabas for the job of fixing of nuts and bolts in 
the Microwave Tower. After completion of the work and commissioning of the 
E Microwave Towers, respondent was relieved from his job on 1.12.1987. Office 
of the Microwave, Kota, was also abolished as there was no need of work 
and in any event it was only of casual nature. Respondent raised a dispute 
to the effect that there was. termination of his services which is illegal. The 
Labour Ministry, Govt. oflndia vide order dated 30.9.1991 referred the following 
F 
dispute under Section I 0( I) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 
'Act') to the Industrial Tribunal (Central) Kota, Rajasthan. 
"Whether the action of the AEN Microwave Project, Kota & LET, 
Jaipur in terminating the services of Shri Ramesh Chand, S/o Shri 
Jankidas, Casual Labour under AEN Microwave Project, Kota at 
G 
Lawatbhata w.e.f. 1.12.1987 is justified? If not, to what relief the 
concerned workman is entitled?" 
3. On behalf of the applicant it' was pleaded that he had been engaged 
as casual labourer on 8.12.1986 and, therefore, he having worked for more 
~ 
than 240 days in 12 calendar months could not have been terminated. The 
H 
appellant took the stand that the respondent was engaged for doing a particular 
MICROWAVE PROJECT, KOTA 1·. RAMESH CHAND[PASA YA T,J.] 
405 
work on a casual labour basis. Since the establishment itself was closed after A 
. completion of the work there was no scope for accepting the prayer of the 
respondent. The Tribunal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.