THE HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD versus SUBHASH CHAND AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 640 · Decided: 24-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE HARY ANA STA TE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD 
v. 
SUBHASH CHAND AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 24, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
labour laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, I947--Chapter V-A and Fifth Schedule-
C Termination of labour-Engaged during paddy seasons on contract-Held: 
Does not involve unfair labour practice. 
Words and phrases: 
Status· and 'privilege "-Meaning of-In the context of Clause (I 0) of 
D Fifth Schedule of Industrial Disputes Act. I947. 
Respondent was appointed during paddy seasons on contract basis. On 
termination of his services, he raised industrial dispute. Labour Court held that 
the termination of service was invalid as the management took recourse to unfair 
E labour policy. Employer filed Writ Petition before High Court which was 
dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court employer contended that the courts below failed to 
take into consideration the definition of retrenchment as contained in Section 
2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1954; that High Court failed to consider 
F that Chapter V(A) and consequently the 5th Schedule appended thereto would 
have no application. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The question as to whether Chapter VA of the Industrial 
G Disputes Act, 1954 will apply or not would depend on the issue as to whether an 
order of retrenchment comes within the purview of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act 
or not If the termination of service in view of the exception contained in clauses 
(bb) of Section 2(00) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1954 is not a 'retrenchment', 
the question of applicability of Chapter VA thereof would not arise. (645-A-Bl 
H 
640 
r 
"' 
HARYANASTATEAGRICULTURALMARKETINGBOARDv.SUBHASHCHAND 641 
1.2. No case has been made out for attracting Clauses (b) and (d) ofitem A 
No.5of5th Schedule. (646-B] 
Punjab State Electricity Board v. Darbara Singh, (2006] I SCC 121 and 
K[shore Chandra Sama/ v. Orissa State Cashew Development Corpn. Ltd. 
Dehnkanal [2006( I SCC 253, relied on. 
Central Bank of India v. S. Satyam and Ors., (1996( 5 SCC 419; State of 
UP. v. Neeraj Awasthi and Ors., (2006( 1 SCC 667 and Regional Manager, SBJ v. -
Rakesh Kumar Tewari, [2006( 1 SCC 530, referred to. 
B 
2.1. As regard applicability of clause (I 0) of 5th Schedule the meaning of 
'status' and 'privilege' is to be seen. (646-B] 
C 
2.2. The definitions of the expressions 'status' and 'privilege' says that such 
'status' and 'privilege' must emanate from a statute. If legal right has been derived 
by the respondent to continue in service in terms of the provisions of the Act 
under which he is governed, then only, the question of depriving him of any status D 
or privilege would arise. Furthermore, it is not a case where the respondent had 
worked for years. He has only worked, on his own showing, for 356 days whereas 
according to the appellant he has worked only for 208 days. Therefore, Fifth 
Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has no application in the instant 
case. In view of the above, the dispensing with of the engagemen;ofthe respondent 
cannot be said to be unwarranted in law. (647-E) 
E 
B.HE.L. and Anr. v. B.K. Vijay and Ors., (2006) 2 SCALE 195, relied on. 
P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd edition, Volume 4, 
relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURJSDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1271 of2006. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 16.09.2003 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 14737 of2003. 
F 
Neeraj Kumar Jain, Aditya Kumar, Bharat Singh, Sanjay Singh and Ugra G 
Shankar Prasad for the Appellant. 
Mahabir Singh, Rakesh Dahiya, Ms. Madhushita, Ms. Nikhil Jain and 
D. Mahesh Babu for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
642 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted. 
The respondent was appointed on contractual basis as an Arrival Record 
Clerk. Such appointments were made during paddy seasons. The period of 
first appointment was from 17. l 0.1997 to 15.1.1998. Again in the next wheat 
season he worked under the appellant from 4.4.1998 to I. 7 .1998. He was again 
B appointed vide order dated 11.9.1998 and worked from 16.9.1998 till 13.12.1998. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
The terms and conditions of service as contained in the order dated 11. 9.1998 
in regard to the appellant are as under: 
"I. That the appointment will be on consolidated wages at the rate 
of Rs. 1536/- P.M. No other allowances will be admissible. 
2. The period of engagement will be 89 d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.