STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. versus RAMESHWAR LAL GAHLOT

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 673 · Decided: 14-12-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
RAMESHWAR LAL GAHLOT 
DECEMBER 14, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, .I.I.] 
B 
Labour Law : 
l11dustrial Disputes Act, 1947: Sections 2(oo)(bb) 25F. Temporary 
appoi11tment for 3 months or till regularly selected candidate assumes of-
C 
[ice-Employee's appoi11tme11t tenni11ated after 240 days' service in tenns of 
letter of appci/lfme11t-W!it pctitio11 agai11st tenninatio11 filed-Single Judge 
held tmni11atio11 ;·:olativc of S.25F of the Act and ordered employee's ap-
pointme11t afresh-Appeal filed agai11st latter pan of order-Divisio11 Be11ch 
ordered reinstatement of employee with back wages-Held: since tenninatio11 , 
was ill tenns.of letter of appoi11tme11t 11either rei11statement 11or fresh appoillt- D 
me11t could be made-He11ce, tenni11atio11 was not illegal-Since employee 
was appoillled afresh and order of Single Judge was not chall<i11ged he would 
continue in service till regular incunibent assunies offic~However, he was 
not entitled to back wages. 
The respondent was appointed for a period of three months or till the 
regularly selected candidate assumed office. His appointment was ter-
minated after 240 days. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High 
Court which was allowed by a Single Judge on the ground that since the 
respondent had completed more than 240 days in service, the termination 
E 
was violative of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The F 
appellants were directed to make fresh appointment of the respondent. The 
appellants filed against the latter part of the order before the Division 
Bench of the High Court which set aside the latter part of the order and 
directed reinstatement with back wages. 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that since the appellant 
did not challenge the order of the Single Judge the termination became final 
and, therefore, the appellant was liable to pay back wages to the respondent 
on reinstatement. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
673 
G 
H 
674 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD : 1.1. When the appointment was for a fixed period unless 
there is finding that power under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Dis-
putes Act, 1947 was misused or vitiated by its ma/a fide exercise, it cannot 
be held that the termination is illegal. In its absence, the employer could 
terminate the services in terms of the letter of appointment unless it is a 
B colonrable exercise of power. It must be established in each case that the 
power was misused by the manager or the appointment for a fixed period 
was a colonrable exercise of power. Neither the Single Judge nor the 
Division Bench recorded any finding in this behalf. Therefore, where the 
termination is in terms of letter of appointment saved by clause (bb), 
neither reinstatement nor fresh appointment could be made. Since the 
C appellant has not filed any appeal against the order of the Single Judge and 
respondent came to be appointed afresh he would continue in service, till 
the regular incumbent assumes office as originally ordered. [675-E-F] 
D 
M. Venugopal v. Divisional Manager, LIC., [1994] 2 SCC 323, relied 
on. 
1.2. Since the order is found to be in terms of letter of appointment, 
respondent is not entitled to back wages. The Division Bench was incorrect 
in directing payment of back wages. [675-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 12056 of 
E 1995. 
F 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.4.94 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in D.B.C.S.A. No. 292 of 1992. 
Manoj Kr. Das for Aruneshwar Gupta for the Appellants. 
Ms. Pratibha Jain for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
We have heard the counsel for both the parties. This appeal by 
special leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan 
High Court in Civil Special Appeal No. 292/92 dated April 26, 1994. 
The undisputed facts are that respondent was appointed for a period 
H of three mo'lths or till the regularly selected candidate assumes office. He 
STATEv. R.L.GAHLOT 
675 
was appointed on January 28, 1988 and his appointment came to be A 
terminated on November 19, 1988. When the writ petition was filed, the 
learned single Judge held that since he had c0mpleted more than 240 days, 
the termination is in violative of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947 (for short, 'the Act') and directed to make fresh appointment of the 
respondent. When appeal was filed against th

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