LexSURENDRA KUMAR SHARMA versus VIKAS ADHIKARI AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SURENDRA KUMAR SHARMA v. VIKAS ADHIKARI AND ANR. MAY 9, 2003 B (R.C. LAHOTI AND B.N. AGRA WAL, JJ.] labour law: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 2(oo) and 25F-Retrenchment- C Temporary employment under Jawahar Ro:::gar Yojna extended from time to time-Employment came to an end after completion of 240 days-Abolition of post and termination of service-Termination upheld by Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court-On appeal, held:the termination does not amount to retrenchment-The employee knew that his employment was co- D terminus with the scheme and that the post itself was abolished-Moreover he was not in the employment of Panchayat Samiti-Hence not entitled to any relief including reinstatement. Appellant was employed temporarily 011 daily wages for 100 days under a Scheme. The Scheme was merged with another Scheme known E as Jawahar Rozgar Vojna. On the expiry of the 100 days, instead of rendering the appellant jobless, he was given yet another temporary employment. This employment was extended from time to time. As such his employment came to an end after he completed 240 days. He initiated proceedings against Vikas Adhikari Panchayat Samiti alleging himself to F be in employment of Panchayat Samiti. On his filing writ petition, High Court by interim order protected his employment. However, the post was abolished and consequently his services came to be terminated. Single Judge of High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that as the posts themselves have been abolished, the question of regularization did not arise; that the employment under the Scheme was on adhoc basis and of G temporary nature co-terminus with the Scheme itself, appellant could not be said to have been retrenched within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of •he Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 so as to be entitled to the relief of reinstatement if the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Act were not complied with. High Court also found that appellant was not in the employment of Panchayat Samiti. Writ appeal against the order of Single H 168 S.K. SHARMA v. VIKAS ADHIKARI 169 Judge \Yas dismissed by Division Bench of High Court. A In appeal to this Court appellant contended that without regard to the nature of employment, once a workman has worked in continuous employment for a period of 240 days, his employment could not have been terminated except by complying with the provisions of Section 25 F, hence he would be deemed to have been retrenched and entitled to the relief of B reinstatement. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: I. Appellant is not entitled to any relief and the view taken by High Court cannot be found fault with. Appellant was a daily wager C in a Scheme and knew it well that his employment was co-terminus with the Scheme. The post against which the appellant worked has been abolished for want of funds and has ceased to exist. [173-H; 174-A, BJ Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi and Ors., [1992) 4 SCC 99; SM Nilajkar and Ors. v. D Telecom, District Manager, Karnataka., JT 2003 3 SC 436; Rajendra and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., (1999) 2 SCC 317 and Jaipal and Ors. v. State of Haryana, (1988) 3 SCC 354, relied on. 2. There is yet another reason why the appellant cannot be allowed E any relief. The appellant had initiated proceedings against Vikas Adhikari Panchayat Samiti alleging himself to be in the employment of Panchayat Samiti. High Court has found, upon scrutiny of several documents produced for its consideration and the evidence adduced before the Labour Court that the appellant was not in the emplcyment of Panchayat Samiti at all. What was done was that a panel was prepared by the Collector of F the District enrolling the unemployed and out of that panel the appellant was taken for work on daily wages for the purpose of the Scheme. Panchayat Samiti was not the employer of the appellant. [173-F, G; 174-AJ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5108 of2000. G From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.1999 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B.C.S.A. No. 1488 of 1999. G.L. Sanghi, Ajay Choudhary and Punit D.Tyagi for the Appellant. H 170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003 f SUPP. I S.C.R. A V.N. Raghupathy for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.C. LAHOTI, J. The appellant was employed as a Junior Engineer on daily wages for a period of 100 days vide order dated
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.