Himanshu
Kumar Vidyarthi & Ors Vs. State of Bihar & Ors [1997] INSC 346 (26
March 1997)
K.
RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
O R D
E R Delay condoned .
This
special leave petition arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna
High Court, made on 1.7.1996 in LPA No. 1213/95 confirming the order of the
learned single judge in CWJC No.2311/95.
The
admitted position is that the petitioner No.1 came to be appointed as
Assistant, Petitioner No.2 as Driver and petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 as peons on
different dates, viz., on August 1, 1988, November 10, 1989, May 31, 1987 and
April 22, 1992. They were appointed in the co-operative Training institute, Deoghar
by its principal. They are admittedly daily wage employees. Their services came
to be terminated by the principal. Calling that termination in question. they
filed a writ petition in the High Court. The main grievance of the petitioners
before us is that termination of their services is in violation of section 25F
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The question for consideration,
therefore, is whether the petitioners can be said to have been `retrenched'
within the meaning of section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act? Every
Department of the Government cannot be treated to be "industry". When
the appointments are regulated by the statutory rules, the concept of
"industry" to that extent stands excluded. Admittedly, they were not
appointed to the post in accordance with the rules but were engaged on the
basis of need of the work . They are temporary employees working on daily
wages. Under these circumstances, their disengagement from service cannot be
construed to be a retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act. The concept
of "retrenchment" , therefore, cannot be stretched to such an extent as
to cover these employees. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to
contend that in the High Court, the petitioners did not contend that it is a
case of retrenchment but termination of their services is arbitrary. Since they
are only daily-wage employees and have no right to the posts, their
disengagement is not arbitrary.
The
special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
Back
Pages: 1 2
