PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICILY BOARD versus DARBARA SINGH

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 275 · Decided: 17-11-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

PuNJAB STATE ELECTRICilY BOARO 
v. 
DARBARA SINGH 
NOVEMB.ER 17,2005 
[ARinTPASA)'AT.ANDR.V.RAVEENDRAN,JJ.] 
' 
' 
' 
I 
Labour Laws: 
A 
B 
· 
lndu.strial 
Dlsput~s Act, 1941-Sections 2(oo)(bh), 25-F-
ketrenchment..-w'orkm~rl engaged for· a .specific peri~d-Termination btt C 
eipiry of that period......:.Held, does 'rioi d"!ount to. r'ltrenchmem. 
· . 
· The question .which has arisen for consideration in the present appeal 
is Whether Cessation Of Work to the respondent-W!>l'kman after the expiry of 
specific period ro.- which he was· appointed amounted to retrenchment in terms D 
.. of Section 2(oo)(bb) of industrial Disputes Act, i947. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
. HELD:. The material.s<m record clearly establish th~t the engagement 
of the workfuan was forspeci(ac period ~ml conditional; and thatbn appointment 
of~ regular employee, his engagement was to come to an ~nd. Therefore, the E . 
respondent cannot be said to have been retrenched in view.ofwhat is stated in 
claus~ (bb) ofSeetion 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes ~ct, 1947. (279-A, BJ 
Morinda Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd v. Ram Kisha~ and Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 
653; Anil Bapurao Kanafo v. Kri:>hna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhanti Ltd and p 
Anr., (1997) 10 SCC 599 and Batala Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd v. Sowaran 
Singh, (l005) 7 su.,reme 165, relied on. 
. 
CiVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2554 of 2005. 
. . 
. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.7.2004 of the Punjab and Haryana G 
High Court in C.W.P.No.16841 of2003. 
Mrs: Jayshree Anand, Karunakar Mahalik and Ashwani Bhardwaj for 
the Appellant. 
275 
H 
276 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Bhupender Yadav and R.C. Kohli for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered 
ARIJIT PASA ~AT, J. The Punjab State Electricity Board (in short the 
'Board') questions legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of 
B the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the respondent had rendered 
service in excess of 240 days in twelve calendar months preceding his 
retrenchment and, therefore, provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 194 7 (in short the 'Act') were required to be followed. The High 
Court upheld the judgment of the Labour Court, Amritsar which had directed 
C respondent's reinstatement with 25% back wages from the date of demand 
raised by the respondent. 
The factual position in a nutshell is as under: 
On 4.2.1988 the Board appointed r~spondent as Peon on daily wage 
D basis from 8.1.1988 to 29.2.1988. It was indicated that if the work of the daily 
wager was not found satisfactory or if a regular employee joins, his services 
-would be deemed to be terminated without any notice. It was also indicated 
therein that the daily wager was appointed against vacant post which was 
temporary in character. On 7.3.1988 the period indicated was extended on the 
same terms. There were similar extensions on 30.6.1988, 10.11.1988 and 7.4.1989. 
E On 12.5.1989 one Surat Singh was appointed on a pennanent basis. In tenns 
of the orders of the engagement, the respondent's services were dispensed 
with in the month of June 1989 in terms of the terms and conditions of the 
contractual appointment. After about 8 years on 1.4.1997 the respondent sent 
a demand notice questioning the order of disengagement. The Presiding 
Officer, Labour Court passed an award on 14.1.2003 holding that disengagement 
F of respondent was illegal and he was entitled to reinstatement. However, 
taking note of the delayed demand, the wages were restricted. The writ 
petition filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court as noted above was 
dismissed. 
G 
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appointment was 
for a fixed period and, therefore, the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) were 
clearly applicable. It was also submitted that the abnonnal delay in raising the 
demand making a stale claim has been lightly brushed aside by the Labour 
Court and the High Court. 
H 
In response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there 
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. DARBARA SINGH [PASAYA T, J.] 
277 
was no definite material to show that the appointment was for a fixed period. A 
On the contrary the respondent was permitted to work for several periods. As 
the respondent was representing to the authorities, it cannot be said that 
there was any delay. The plea in this regard has been accepted by the Labour 
Court. In fact, an appeal was filed on 7th Septembe

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