Supreme Court of India
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICILY BOARDversusDARBARA SINGH
- Citation
- 2005 INSC 569
- Decided
- 17 November 2005
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
Termination of a workman whose engagement was for a specific, conditional period does not constitute retrenchment under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Summary
The Punjab State Electricity Board appointed the respondent as a daily‑wage peon for a series of specific, conditional periods, ending when a regular employee was hired. After the appointment ended in June 1989, the respondent filed a demand for reinstatement in 1997; the Labour Court ordered reinstatement with back wages, and the High Court upheld that award. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether termination at the expiry of a fixed‑period engagement constitutes retrenchment under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and whether Section 25‑F applies. Relying on precedents concerning seasonal or fixed‑term work, the Court held that such termination is not retrenchment, as the contract was expressly for a limited period. Consequently, the relief granted by the lower courts was unsustainable and the appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Whether cessation of work after the expiry of a specific‑period appointment amounts to retrenchment under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
- Whether Section 25‑F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is applicable to the termination of a fixed‑term workman.
- Whether the long delay in filing the demand affects the entitlement to relief.
Legislation cited
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 25-F, s. 2(oo)(bb)
Subjects
retrenchmentfixed‑term employmentIndustrial Disputes ActSection 2(oo)(bb)Section 25-Flabour lawterminationback wagesreinstatement
Judgment
PuNJAB STATE ELECTRICilY BOARO A
v.
DARBARA SINGH
NOVEMB.ER 17,2005
[ARinTPASA)'AT.ANDR.V.RAVEENDRAN,JJ.] B
' ' ' I
Labour Laws:
· lndu.strial Dlsput~s Act, 1941-Sections 2(oo)(bh), 25-F-
ketrenchment..-w'orkm~rl engaged for· a .specific peri~d-Termination btt C
eipiry of that period......:.Held, does 'rioi d"!ount to. r'ltrenchmem. ·.
· The question .which has arisen for consideration in the present appeal
is Whether Cessation Of Work to the respondent-W!>l'kman after the expiry of
specific period ro.- which he was· appointed amounted to retrenchment in terms D
.. of Section 2(oo)(bb) of industrial Disputes Act, i947.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
. HELD:. The material.s<m record clearly establish th~t the engagement
of the workfuan was forspeci(ac period ~ml conditional; and thatbn appointment
of~ regular employee, his engagement was to come to an ~nd. Therefore, the E .
respondent cannot be said to have been retrenched in view.ofwhat is stated in
claus~ (bb) ofSeetion 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes ~ct, 1947. (279-A, BJ
Morinda Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd v. Ram Kisha~ and Ors., (1995) 5 SCC
653; Anil Bapurao Kanafo v. Kri:>hna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhanti Ltd and p
Anr., (1997) 10 SCC 599 and Batala Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd v. Sowaran
Singh, (l005) 7 su.,reme 165, relied on. .
.
CiVIL
.
APPEL LATE JURISDICTION
.
: Civil Appeal No. 2554 of 2005.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.7.2004 of the Punjab and Haryana G
High Court in C.W.P.No.16841 of2003.
Mrs: Jayshree Anand, Karunakar Mahalik and Ashwani Bhardwaj for
the Appellant.
275 H
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A Bhupender Yadav and R.C. Kohli for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered
ARIJIT PASA ~AT, J. The Punjab State Electricity Board (in short the
'Board') questions legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of
B the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the respondent had rendered
service in excess of 240 days in twelve calendar months preceding his
retrenchment and, therefore, provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 194 7 (in short the 'Act') were required to be followed. The High
Court upheld the judgment of the Labour Court, Amritsar which had directed
C respondent's reinstatement with 25% back wages from the date of demand
raised by the respondent.
The factual position in a nutshell is as under:
On 4.2.1988 the Board appointed r~spondent as Peon on daily wage
D basis from 8.1.1988 to 29.2.1988. It was indicated that if the work of the daily
wager was not found satisfactory or if a regular employee joins, his services
-would be deemed to be terminated without any notice. It was also indicated
therein that the daily wager was appointed against vacant post which was
temporary in character. On 7.3.1988 the period indicated was extended on the
same terms. There were similar extensions on 30.6.1988, 10.11.1988 and 7.4.1989.
E On 12.5.1989 one Surat Singh was appointed on a pennanent basis. In tenns
of the orders of the engagement, the respondent's services were dispensed
with in the month of June 1989 in terms of the terms and conditions of the
contractual appointment. After about 8 years on 1.4.1997 the respondent sent
a demand notice questioning the order of disengagement. The Presiding
Officer, Labour Court passed an award on 14.1.2003 holding that disengagement
F of respondent was illegal and he was entitled to reinstatement. However,
taking note of the delayed demand, the wages were restricted. The writ
petition filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court as noted above was
dismissed.
G Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appointment was
for a fixed period and, therefore, the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) were
clearly applicable. It was also submitted that the abnonnal delay in raising the
demand making a stale claim has been lightly brushed aside by the Labour
Court and the High Court.
H In response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. DARBARA SINGH [PASAYA T, J.] 277
was no definite material to show that the appointment was for a fixed period. A
On the contrary the respondent was permitted to work for several periods. As
the respondent was representing to the authorities, it cannot be said that
there was any delay. The plea in this regard has been accepted by the Labour
Court. In fact, an appeal was filed on 7th September, 1989 and the appellant
h?S failed to prove that the same was disposed of.
B
The position of law relating to fixed appointments and the scope and
ambit of Section 2(00)(bb) and Section 25-F were examined by this Court in
several cases.
In view of the findings in the background of the legal position, we do
not consider it necessary to go into the question as to whether the demand C
raised after a long lapse of time is to be considered fatal.
We find that the High Court's judgment is unsustainable on more than
one count. In Morinda Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd v. Ram K~shan and Ors.,
(1995] 5 sec 653 it was observed as follows: D
"4. It .would thus· be clear that the respondents were not working
throughout the season. They worked during crushing seasons only.
The respondents were taken· into work for the season and consequent
to closure of the season, they ceased to work.
5. The question is whether such a cessation would amount to E
retrenchment. Since it is only a seasonal work, the respondents cannot
be said to have been retrenched in view of what is stated in clause
(bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act. Under these circumstances, we are
of the opinion that the view taken by the Labour Court and the High
Court is illegal. However, the appellant is directed to maintain a register F
for all workmen engaged during the seasons enumerated hereinbefore
and when the new season starts the appellant should make a
publication in neighbouring places in which the respondents normally
live and if they would report for duty, the appellant would engage
them in accordance with seniority and exigency of work."
G
The position was re-iterated by a three-Judge Bench of this Court Court
in Anil Bapurao Kanase v. Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd and
Anr., (1997] 10 SCC 599. lt was noted as follows:
"The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the judgment of
the High Court of Bombay relied on in the impugned order dated H
I
278 .... SUPREME C:Ol)RT REPORTS· [200S]SUPP. 5 S.C~R.
A 28.3.1995 in. Writ Petition No~488 c,>fl 994 is p~rhaps not applicable:
Since ihe appellant has wd~k.effor more than f so days, he ·is to .be
treated as retrertched. employee and. if th.e proc;:edur~. conternpJated
under Sec.tion 25-Fofthe"fndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 is applied, his
retrenchment is illegal. We firid n,o ,force .in *is, <;ontentio~. In Marinda
Foop.Sug<;zr Mills ~lfi..,y;; Ra'!'. {(j.s.~an, in, ~~r~ ~~- t~is C9,~rt- h.as: d.e~lt
B with enga~em·ent of th'e ~eason11I workman. in sug~rcane ~ru~hi_ng;. in
. para: 4 it is' stated· that it wa,s nof/ case ·?f ~~trenc~-~ert. of t~e·
workman, but of c!osute of th~ fa~t~ry l\fter tile crushipg se_aso~ ~:8&
over. Accordingly, in .para ·5; it was. hel_d that it Is· not 'retrenchment' ·
within the m~a:ning of Section 2(oo) of the Act. As a con5eq~erice the
c appella~t is. not erititled' to retrenchment 8$. per chmse (bb) ·of Section
2(oo) of. the Act. .Since the present. w'otk is seasonal busiiiess, the .
.principles of the.. Act .have. no· 8,pplication
.
.. .However;
. this· Coµrt has
~ ' ' ) '
directed th~t the respon~ent man~gem~nt .shpulq jnaintain a' regis~er
'artd(engage ,the \\'Orkmen' When the' season ~ta:rts·•in" the sUccee~lillg
1
.. . • • . . . . ' ,' i. t'~· ' ' ' '. .. l ~
. years in tli~ otdet of:.senforjty.-Uritil 8!1 the ernpll?yees· whose qames,
D . appear in the list are, . eng~ged in:a:dd'itiori the empfoyees who .are to
already working, the manageme:nt should· not• go fa' for: fr~sh
engagement of. ne:W ~<;>rkm~n. ··lt ·would 'be incum.bent upon ~he.
respondent' man'agement .to adopt.1:~uch' procedure 'as; is. enumerated
. '
above;" '."'
E Re~ently ~he questioP. was ·exa~i11~d in.~ata,la do{}keta~ive Sugar Mil(s
Ltd v, Sowaran Singh, (2005) (7) Supreme 1':65~ .. '.. . . , . . .· .· ·. ·
.. ~
Se~~i~n 2(oo)(bb)
': .
reads· as fo1J6w/ ::'· '.
' .... ' ' . '.i . . •.
' .
"(oo) ''retrenchment means the termination, by the employer ofthe 1
'
F . .
. servic'e of a·, .workman·
•
for apy rea~on whatso.ever,
I"
otherwise. ~han as·
, ' ,• • ,, , •, , ~ •' ' I. l . 1 ·, •• "I . . ,. : · , ~
. ! . , .' ; ., i . , .' . . ,· ' f' I I~ t , ' • • ~· -,. ' ~
· a. punishment inflicted by w~y
o• •' r . l
·of
•
djsc1pl'ina1y
: fl~
actipn,
,
but does 'not , ·
+ • ~ ,'l •'' · . ' , .' o., ,• • ' ' ·", '• •. ' I' I ·• '
in<;1iude - .',.: . · ., . .1. ·
,'I,·· ,.,
(a) ......:-. . ~ =~~ "i·
' ' : i
~
.,.;-.
J
'
\ ' ' •·
G .Cb> ... "... ··~·:
' '· ,, .. .;
·. ' \
' '
(bb) terminatiO~ of.the ~ervic~ 'Or th~ wor~man as a resul1t of the non-
renewal of the contract of employment ~e~een th.e employer and the.
workman conc~med !:>n'.itS-expiry;qr of'i;uch contract·b~irig te~inated
, • ., . , . . ·. ' .. ,• • i • ·~ . l 'I ·.. • .' ; f• - • 1
qnder a ~tipulatio~ 'in. that b~halfconta~nea therein", · ,
H
.• •. I> .• •:, ' I
PUNJAB S'.fATE ELECTRICITY BOARD'" DARBARA SINGH [PASA VAT, J.] 279
.The materials. on recotd clearly establish that the engagement of the A
workman was for specific period and conditional. It was clearly fodicated that
on appoii:itment of a regular employee, his engagement was to come to an
end.
·hl view of the position as highlighted in Marinda Coop. Sugar Mills.
Anil Bap~ti:w and Batala Co-operatives cases (supra); the relief granted to B
the workman by:the Labour Court and the Hlgh Court cannot be maintained.
Th~refore, t_he orders of the Labour ~c>Urt and the High Court are clearly
untenable and are qµashed. Our interference shall not stand on the way of
appellant considering .the case of the respondent for eogagem~nt on such
terms as is deemed proper by it. If question of any disqualification ~n account C
of crossing of age limit arises, the appellant shall condone it as a special case
in view of.the b,ackgrouhd' facts of.the case.
...The.
:
appeal
,· .
i~ .allowed
. .
.with no
.
order as.
'.
to costs .
'i)£i. ft..ppeal allowed. D
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "retrenchment"Sign in to search