S.M. NILAJKAR AND ORS. versus TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER, KARNATAKA

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 156 · Decided: 31-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
S.M. NILAJKAR AND ORS. 
v. 
TELECOM. DISTRICT MANAGER, KARNATAKA 
MARCH 3 I. 2003 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
labour laws: 
Industrial Displlles Act, 1947-Sections 2(oo)(bb) and 25F-Employment 
C of workmen on casual basis under a project-Termination of service on 
completion of work-Non-co111pliance of Section 25F-Justiflcation of-labour 
Court's order for reinstatement with 50% back wages challenged by way of 
writ petition--Single Judge of Hi,,;11 L'uurt held that /erminalion amounted lo 
retrenchment-However, back wages denied in view al delay in raising the 
D dispute-Division Bench held workmen covered under Section 2(ou)(bb) finding 
the employment as project based--Ref"erence held to be vitiated on the ground 
of delay-On appeal held, employment H'as project based-Termination of 
workmen engaged in a scheme or pro/eel would nut amount lo retrenchment 
within the meaning lf sub-clause (bb) subject tu certain ingredie/1/s being 
proved-To prove the applicabili1y of lhe sub-clausl' 1he onus lies on the 
E employer-For want of proof" atlracting applicability of sub clause (bb) the 
termination amounted to re1renchme111-0n the facts of 1he case workmen do 
not deserve to be non-suited on 1he ground of delay-Evidence Act, 1872-
0nus lo prove. 
F 
( '1 
1-1 
l111erpretalion of Sta/l//es: 
Interpretation of labour laws-Held, has lo be interpre1ed in favour of 
beneficiary. 
Words and Phrases: 
"Retrenchment ··-Meaning of," in the context a/Section 2(uo) of Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947. 
Appdlant-employees were engaged as casual labourers with the 
respondent-employer for the purpose of expansion of the work during a 
156 
S.M. NILAJKAR v. TELECOM. DISTRICT MANAGER 
157 
particular period. On completion of the work their services were A 
terminated. Pursuant to judgment in Daily Rated Casual labour employed 
under P & T Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Majdoor Manch v. Union 
of India and Ors., j1988j 1 SCC 122 wherein direction to regularize casual 
labourers was given, Department formulated a scheme and prepared a 
list of casual labourers for regularization. Appellants were refused to be B 
accommodated therein, on 16.1.1990. On 28.12.1990 they initiated 
proceedings under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 followed by Conciliation 
proceedings. Thereafter the dispute was referred to Industrial Tribunal-
cum Labour Court. The Tribunal directed the employer to reinstate all 
the workmen with the benefit of continuity of service and 50% back wages. 
In writ proceedings Single Judge of High Court held that the workers C 
would not be governed by Section 2 (oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes 
Act, 1947 as their employment was not for any particular project; that 
their termination amounted to retrenchment and the same was invalid for 
non-compliance with Section 25F of the Act; that the Tribunal was right 
in relying on the oral evidence of the workmen as to the period of their D 
employment due to delay of around 7 to 9 years in raising the dispute; 
that employer was not in it position to produce the record regarding the 
same; and that on account of delay in raising the dispute workmen were 
not entitled to any back wages. In writ appeal Division Rench of High 
Court held that the workmen were emp.loyed in a project and, therefore, 
were covered by Section 2(oo)(bb); that the question of non-compliance E 
of Section 25F of the Act did not arise as the termination of service was 
as a result of non-renewal of contract of employment on the expiry of the 
contract; and that delay of 7 to 9 years in raising the dispute vitiated the 
reference because.of !aches. 
In appeal to this Court appellant-workmen contended that they were 
employed for general maintenance work and not under a project; and that 
the reference sougM by the workmen cannot be said to be delayed 
particularly when the law .does not prescribe any period of limitation for 
F 
raising a dispute under Section 10 of the Act. 
G 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Government as a welfare State floats several schemes 
and projects generating employment opportunities, though they are short-
lived. The objective is to meet the need of the moment. The benefit of such H 
158 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] 3 S.C.R. 
A schemes and projects is that for the duration they exist, they provide 
employment and livelihood to such persons as would not have been able 
to secure the same but for such schemes or projects. If the workmen 
employed for

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