DISTRICT PROGRAMME CO-OORDINATOR, MAHILA SAMKHYA AND ANR.versusABDUL KAREEM AND ANR.

                        [2008] 13 S.C.R. 677


           DISTRICT PROGRAMME CO-OORDINATOR,                         A
                 MAHILA SAMKHYA AND ANR,
                                 v
                   ABDUL KAREEM AND ANR.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 5815 of 2008)
                      SEPTEMBER 18, 2008                             B

            [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ]

         Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
           s. 2(oo)(bb) - Driver engaged by a Society in a project-  c
    Termination of his services - Reinstatement by Labour court
    - Affirmed by High Court - Held: It is not a case where termi-
    nation of services of workman emanated from non-renewal of
    contract of employment - The Finding arrived at by Labour
    Court that the termination relying upon or based on a clause D
    of offer of appointment was camouflage, has been affirmed by
    High Court - However, it is not a case where reinstatement
    could be ordered, as the project itself has come to an end -
    Since services of workman could be terminated at the end of
    tenure of project, instead of instatement, workman be paid a E
    sum of Rs.56,0001- as compensation for the remaining pe.
    riod.
         CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5815
    of 2008
                                                                     F
          From the final Judgment and Order dated 9.12.2005 and
    20.06.2006 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ
    Petition No. 27673 of 2000 (LITER) and Writ Appeal No. 130
    of 2006 (LITER)
        Naveen R. Nath, Lalit Mohini Bhat and Hetu Arora for the     G
    Appellants.
t
        Raja Venkatappa Naik, Raja Raghavendra Naik, R.K.
    Gupta and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the Respondents.
                                 677                                 H
    678       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2008] '13 S.C.R.


A         The following Order of the Court was delivered
          Delay condoned.
          Leave granted.
          Mahila Samkhya, Karnataka, is a society registered un-
8   der the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960.
          This society is engaged in various activities, like encour-
    aging, assisting, promoting, decision making and encouraging
    group action by women as means of their empowerment and
c   equal participation in the process to bring about social changes
    and to empower the women. The activities of the said society is
    being carried out in the districts of Gulbarga, Bidar, Raichur,
    Bijapur, Bellary, Koppal and Mysore in the State of Karnataka. It
    has been receiving funds from the Government of Netherlands
    for the aforementioned activities.
0
         The services of respondent No.1 herein as a driver were
    hired by the appellants. He was initially appointed in the year
    1992 on fixed tenure basis. On or about 201h October, 1997, his
    services were again hired inter alia for the period 1.11.1997 to
E   31.10.1999. Appellants were, however, entitled to terminate his
    services with 30 days notice on either side or by payment of
    compensation of one month's honorarium in lieu of notice.
          It is now not much in dispute that some acts of omission
    and commission on the part of the 1•1 respondent were brought
F   to the notice of the authorities of the Society and some pur-
    ported oral enquiry was conducted at Bangalore in connection
    with some vehicle bearing No. KA-39 M-42.
       By reason of a letter dated 3rd July, 1998, however, the
G services of respondent No.1 were terminated in terms of para
  14 of the offer of appointment, stating:
          "Vide the above referred letter, you were appointed as a
          driver in MSK, Gulbcirga as per the terms and conditions
          mentioned therein. In accordance with para XIV of your
H         appointment letter, your services are no longer required in
       DIST. PROGRAMME CO-OORDINATOR, MAHILA                  679
        SAMKHYA & ANR. v. ABDUL KAREEM & ANR.

     this organization and hence your services are terminated        A
     with immP.diate effect, i.e. with effect from 3.7.98 with one
     month notice in lieu of which you are being paid one
     month's honorarium."
     ·An industrial dispute was raised by the 1•1 respondent
before the Labour Court at Gulbarga. Both the parties adduced
                                                                     s·
their respective evidences before the Presiding Officer, Labour
Court. Having regard to the deposition of Ms. Jyothi Kulkarni
examined on behalf of the appellants as NW-1, the Labour Court
opined:
                                                                     c
     "The main contention of the 2nd party is that the termination
     of the workman 1st party was only a termination simplicitor
     and the same cannot be disturbed by the Court. In this case
     the 2nd party has produced the letter dt. 3.7.98. Of course the
     said letter shows that the appointment was only temporary in
     nature. This statement as reflected in the letter cannot be D
     accepted. In fact the 1st party has produced before the court
     the letter issued by the establishment. The said letter issued
     by the officials of the 2nd party marked as W1 clearly indicates
     that the serVice of 1st party was terminated not on account of
     temporary work but it was due to the fact that the same was E
     not proper."
       Holding that as no disciplinary enquiry was conducted, the
termination order dated 3. 7.1998 was illegal, an award of rein-
statement in service with full back wages was made. Aggrieved
by and dissatisfied with the said award the appellants filed writ    F
petition in the High Court. The High Court while upholding the
award of reinstatement in service reduced the back-wages to
30 per cent.
     Appellants are, thus, before us.
                                                                   G
      Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the appellants would submit
that the Labour Court and consequently the High committed a
serious illegality in passing the impugned award and the judg-
ment, in so far as they failed to take into consideration that the
order of termination did not attract the provisions contained in H
    680       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 13 S.C.R


A Chapter VA of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 inasmuch as
  the termination of services of the 1st respondent came within
  the purview of clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Dis-
  putes Act, 1947.
        Mr. Naik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the re-
B spondents, on the other hand, would urge that from the letter
  dated 5th August, 1997 issued by the Ministry of Human Re-
  source Development, Department of Education, Government
  of India, it would appear that the Project during the 91hPlan pe-
  riod was to continue from 1997-98 to 2001-2002 and in that
c view of he matter, the services of the 1st respondent should not
  have been terminated before the Project came to an end.
        From the deposition of Ms. Jyothi Kulkarni t erself, the
  learned counsel submitted, it is abundantly clear tt at the ser-
  vices of the 1st respondent were terminated by way of punish-
D
  ment in lieu of dismissal from service as his behavic 1ur was not
  proper and, thus, this Court should not exercise its discretion-
  ary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
                                                 ~




       Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7
E reads as under:
          "termination of the service of the workman a~ a result of
          the non-renewal of the contract of employment between
          the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or
          of such contract being terminated under a s ipulation in
F         that behalf contained therein;"
        It is not a case where the termination of these vices of the
  1st respondent emanated from non-renewal of cor tract of em-
  ployment. Under the general law, the appellants migl 1t have been
  entitled to take recourse to clause XIV of the offe · of appoint-
G
  ment dated 20.10.1997, but in view of the fact th it the terms
  and conditions of services of the 1st respondent we re governed      .,
  by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, the order ofter-
  mination must satisfy the requirements ~;18reof.
H         We may place on record that although a co itention has
                     DIST. PROGRAMME CO-OORDINATOR, MAHILA                 681
                      SAMKHYA & ANR. v. ABDUL KAREEM & ANR.

             been raised both before the Labour Court as also the High Court A
             that the society does not satisfy the test of an 'industry' as con- ·
             tained in Section 20) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Mr.
             Nath did not raise any such contention before us.
                  A finding has been arrived at by the Labour Court that the
             termination of the services of the 1st respondent, relying on or B
             on the basis of clause XIV of the offer of appointment, is a cam-
             ouflage and the said finding has been affirmed by the High Court.
             We are not inclined to interfere therewith, being a finding of fact.
'\                It is, however, not a case where an award of reinstatement     c
             could be made. The Society runs the project. The project came
             to an end in 1999. The plea that the tenure of the project was
             extended by the Government of India was not put to the Man-
             agement. Such a plea cannot be raised for the first time before
      ....   us.
                                                                                 D
i                   We, therefore, are of the opinion that as the services of
             the 1st respondent could be terminated on or about 31.10.1999,
             i.e. at the end of the tenure of the project, interest of justice will
             be subserved if in stead and place of upholding the award of
             reinstatement in service, we direct the appellants to pay a sum E
             of Rs. 56,000/- to the 1st respondent by way of compensation
             which would cover the amount of honorarium to which he would
             have been entitled to for the period July, 1998 to October, 1999.
             We direct accordingly.
     ,,
                  The said payment shall be made within a period ofeight         F
             weeks from the date of communication of this order, failing which
             the same shall bear interest at the rate of 12 per cent per an-
             num.
                    The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
                                                                                 G
             R.P.                                            Appeal allowed .
     ...