RAMESH KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2010] 1 S.C.R. 532 · Decided: 13-01-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 1 S.C.R. 532 
RAMESH KUMAR 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
. (Civil Appeal No. 229 of 2010) 
JANUARY 13, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. DATIU, J.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s. 2(00), 2(s) and 25F -
Workman employed on casual basis - Termination of his 
c service without notice or retrenchment compensation -
Industrial dispute raised - Award by labour court reinstating 
him with continuity of service and with back wages - Award 
set aside by High Court - On appeal, held: The workman had 
continuous service of 240 days in a calender year- Similarly 
o placed persons were regularized - Employee in question was 
a 'workman' u/s. 25(s) - Termination of his service was in 
contravention of s. 25F - The plea that initial appointment of 
the workman was contrary to recruitment rules not applicable 
in the facts of the case - The plea also cannot be allowed, 
E since it was raised for the first time before High Court. 
Appellant was appointed on casual basis in a State 
Government Department. His service was terminated 
without any notice or retrenchment compensation. On 
coming to know that persons similarly appointed were 
F either allowed to continue or regularized, appellant raised 
industrial dispute. Labour court passed the award 
holding that the workman had worked with the 
Department for a period of more than 240 days within 12 
calendar months preceding the date of termination; aild 
G that since s. 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not 
complied with, he was entitled to reinstatement. 
Reinstatement was directed with continuity of service 
with 50% back wages. High Court set aside the award. 
Hence, the present appeal. 
H 
532 
RAMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA 
533 
Allowing the appeal, the Court · · 
HELD: 1. The materials placed by the appellant 
before the labour court clearly show that he had worked 
A 
for three years and there was no break during his service 
tenure. He was -issued identity card to work in the 
residence of the Chief Minister and no reason was given 
B 
for his termination. It is also his case that there was no 
show cause notice and no inquiry was conducted. The 
Labour Court rightly found that the workman has 
continuously worked from December 1991 to January, 
1993. It also found that the workman worked for 240 days 
C 
with the Department within 12 calendar months preceding 
his date of termination. (Para 10) (536-G-H; 537-8-C] 
2. It is not in dispute that the appellant is a 
"workman" as defined under Section 2{s) of Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947 and "retrenchment" if any, it should 
D 
be in accordance with Section 25F of the Act. In the 
instant case, the workman was not given any notice or 
pay in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation at the 
time of his retrenchment. In view of the same, the labour 
court has correctly concluded that his termination is in 
E 
contravention of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. 
[Para 10) (538-D-E; 538-E-F] 
. 
3. The appellant alone was singled out and 
discriminated. Identical awards passed in the case of 
three other workmen was upheld by the High Court and 
F 
the award in favour of the appellant alone was quashed 
by the High Court in the second round of litigation. 
Though, it was contended that the initial appointment of 
the appellant was contrary to the recruitment rules and 
constitutional scheme of employment, admittedly, the 
G 
said objection was not raised by the Department either 
before the labour court or before the High Court at the 
first instance. It was only for the first time that they raised 
the said issue before the High Court when the matter was 
remitted to it that too the same was raised only during the 
H 
534 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[201 O] 1 S.C.R. 
A arguments. In such circumstances, the High Court ought 
not to have interfered with the factual finding rendered 
by the labour court and in view of the different treatment 
to other similarly placed workmen, the Department ought 
not to have challenged the order of the labour court. [Para 
B 12] [541-C; 541-E-G] 
4. An appointment on public post cannot be made in 
contravention of recruitment rules and constitutional 
·scheme of employment. However, in view of the materials 
placed before the labour court and in this Court, the said 
c principle would not apply in the case on hand. The 
appellant has not prayed for regularization but only for 
reinstatement with continuity of service for which he is 
legally entitled to. In the case of termi

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