Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors
- SCC(1997) 4 SCC 391
- Neutral1997 INSC 322
- AIRAIR 1997 SC 3657
- SCR[1997] 3 SCR 368
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where persons are appointed to temporary positions on a daily wage basis not in accordance with statutory rules but on the basis of the work's needs, and their appointments are not regulated by statutory rules of service, their disengagement from service does not constitute retrenchment within the meaning of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and therefore the protections against retrenchment under that Act do not apply to them. Where a government department or statutory institution engages temporary daily-wage workers whose appointments fall outside the scope of statutory service rules, the disengagement of such workers cannot be characterized as arbitrary dismissal merely because the engagement was temporary and discretionary in nature. The concept of "industry" under the Industrial Disputes Act excludes departments and institutions where appointments are regulated by statutory rules and do not follow the ordinary course of recruitment.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
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.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free