LexSUB-DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR OF POST, VAIKAM AND ORS. ETC. versus THEYYAM JOSEPH ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I ..( - - SUB-DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR OF POST, VAIKAM AND ORS. ETC. v. THEYYAM JOSEPH ETC. FEBRUARY 2, 1996 jK. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATI'ANAIK, JJ.] Se1vice Law : A B Postal Department-Extra Depa1tmental Staff Service Rules-Rules 6 C & 7-Extra Depa1tmental Agents are Civil Servants regulated by conduct Rules-Not workmen attracting the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act-771eref ore temiination of se1vices under the provisions of the Act not justified-Since the Persons were appointed de hors the rules, entitled to payment of one month allowance plus DA.-Could apply against vacancy alising in future and should be considered-In one appeal since the employee D has been working since 1983, T1ibunal's order not inteifered with--lndustrial Disputes Act, 1947. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3385-86 of 1996 Etc. Etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 27.6.90 of the Central Ad- ministrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench Kerala, in O.A. No. 49/90 and Order dated 26.10.90 in R.A. No. 107/90. V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, N.N. Goswami, T.C. Shar- ma, Hemant Sharma, C.V.S. Rao, A.D.N. Rao, Mrs. Anil Katiyar for the appellants. A.S. Nambiar, P.K. Manohar, Ms. Shanta Vasudevan, Ms. Malini Podwal and Amlan Ghosh for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides. E F G Shri N.G. Malik, E.D. Packer was recruited on September 21, 1991 H 93 94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R. A and sent for training from September 23, 1991 to October 2, 1991. The respondent came to be appointed as a substitute w.e.f. September 21, 1991 without observing any formality of appointment, as a stop-gap arrange- ment. It would appear that N.G. Malik had not reported for duty after the training and the respondent continued in the post of E.D. Packer. On B August 2, 1993, without notice, he was terminated from service. He ap- proached the CAT, Ahmedabad Bench in O.S. No. 51/1994 and same are the facts in all other cases. The Tribunal by its impugned order dated May 12, 1994 allowed the case, set aside the orders of termination of Sailesh Kumar on the ground C that the appellant is an industry and the respondent is a workman governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act'). Under Section 25F, no notice was issued terminating the service nor retrenchment com- pensation was paid, therefore, the respondent is entitled to reinstatement and it would be open to the appellant to take action against him according D to the relevant provisions of the Act. Thus these appeals by special leave. Similar views are expressed by all the 'Tribunals covered in the batch. Shri Goswami, learned senior counsel for the appellants, contended that appointment of these Extra-Departmental Agents are regulated under the statutory instructions issued by the Director general of Postal and E Telecommunication from time to time. Being governed by those statutory rules, they are not permanent employees. They are only part-time employees on contract basis subject to the conditions mentioned therein. Therefore, neither the appellant is an industry nor is the respondent a workmen under the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal, therefore, was p · wrong in its finding that the provisions of the Act are attracted. The learned counsel for the respondent and also Sri Nambiar, counsel appear- ing for the other respondents, contended that the counsel who appeared for Union of India before the Tribunal have conceded that the appellant is in industry and, therefore, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the procedure prescribed in the Act shall be followed. Since no notice G under Section 25F of the Act was given, the termination of the service is illegal and, therefore, is consistent with law. Having regard to the contentions, the question arises whether the appellant is an Industry? India as a sovereign socialist, secular democratic H republic has to establish an egalitarian social order under rule of law. The - _..:q .... I -1.. SUB-DIVNL. INSPECTOR OF POST v. THEYY AM JOSEPH 95 welfare measures partake the character of sovereign functions and the A traditional duty to maintain law and order is no longer the concept of the State. Directive principles of State policy enjoin on the State diverse duties under part IV of the Constitution and the performance of the duties are constitutional func
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.