SONEPAT COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. versus RAKESH KUMAR

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 950 · Decided: 16-12-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SONEPAT COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. 
v. 
RAKESH KUMAR 
DECEMBER 16,2005 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 25F-Termination of employee 
C engaged on daily wage basis as Computer He/per-Tribunal holding that 
employee worked continuously for more than 240 days in a year, thus 
termination violative of section 25F, thus to be reinstatement as computer 
programmer-Justification of-Held: Termination was retrenchment since no 
pleading or proof that appointment was contractual for a specific period and 
D termination was due to non renewal-Employee worked for more than 240 
days during a year prior to termination, as such violation of section 25F-
Hence, order of reinstatement justified but only as a computer helper since he 
was appointed in a non-manual clerical post in the computer department. 
According to the appellant-employer, he employed the _respondent 
E on daily wages in the computer section between the period 1.7.1998 and 
31.8.1999 after obtaining sanction and thereafter, terminated his services. 
Respondent served demand notice alleging the termination to be illegal 
for violation of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Before 
the Labour Court, appellant contended that the respondent was engaged 
F on daily wage basis; and as he did not complete 240 days of service, there 
was no violation Section 25F of the Act. Labour Court held that since the 
respondent had worked for more than 240 days in a year continuously 
prior to his termination, his termination was violative of section 25, and 
hence was entitled to reinstatement to the post of computer programmer. 
Appellant then challenged the order on the ground that the termination 
G did not amount to retrenchment since it was due to non-renew.al of contract 
of employment, and thus, there was no violation of Section 25F; and also 
the direction for reinstatement as computer programmer was not justified. 
High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal. 
H 
950 
SONEPAT COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. v. RAKESH KUMAR 
951 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
A 
"., 
HELD: 1.1. The specific case of the appellant before the Labour 
Court and in the writ petition was that there was no sanctioned post of 
Computer Programmer or Computer Operator, and the respondent was 
appointed as a Computer Helper on daily wage basis, pending decision 
on creation of the post and prescription of qualification thereof. It is not B 
borne out either by the pleadings of the appellant - employer before the 
Labour Court and the High Court or the evidence that the appointment 
of the respondent was contractual for a specific period, from 1.7.1998 to 
31.8.1999; and that the termination was on account of non-renewal of such 
contract. It was pleaded nor proved that respondent was informed at the C 
time of appointment that appointment was contractual upto 31.8.1999. The 
appellant cannot raise such a contention for the first time before this 
Court. The pleadings and evidence clearly show that the termination is 
'retrenchment.' 1953-E-H; 954-AJ 
1.2. The Time keeper who had produced the Attendance Register for D 
the period 1.7.1998 to 31.8.1999 specifically admitted that as per the 
Attendance Register, the respondent had worked continuously between the 
said period and that had worked for more than 240 days in a period of 
one year prior to respondent's termination. Thus, there was a clear 
violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Act, 1947 and the direction for E 
reinstatement of employee is correct and order of Labour Court calls for 
no interference. [954-B, CJ 
1.3. The records clearly show that the respondent was appointed in 
a non-manual clerical post in the computer department, his reinstatement 
shall be as Helper involving clerical work (not necessarily in the computer F 
section), and not as 'Computer Programmer'. He should also not be 
reinstatement as a manual labourer. Thus, the Labour Court was not 
justified in directing reinstatment of the respondent as a Computer. 
Programmer. 1955-A, B) 
CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4460 of 2005. G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.9.2003 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 14355 of 2003. 
Manoj Swarup and Neeraj K. Sharma for the Appellant. 
H 
952 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Jasbir Singh Malik, D.K. Sharma, Arun Kumar Singh and Ms. Kamakshi 
S. Mehlwal for the Responden

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