HARYANA STATE FCCW STORE LIMITED Vs. RAM NIWAS
LAWS(SC)-2002-7-83
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
July 08,2002
HARYANA STATE F.C.C.W.STORE LTD
Appellant
VERSUS
RAM NIWAS
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
UPTRON INDIA LIMITED VS. SHAMMI BHAN [REFERRED]HARMOHINDER SINGH VS. KHARGA CANTEEN AMBALA CANTT [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. K LAKSHMINARAYANA [LAWS(APH)-2014-6-47] [REFERRED TO]SECRETARY KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI DIST ALIGARH VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT U P AGRA [LAWS(ALL)-2007-11-81] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDER KUMAR VS. DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES [LAWS(DLH)-2019-10-47] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHIR R KOLI VS. MAHARASHTRA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD [LAWS(BOM)-2004-6-181] [REFERRED]
SUDHIR R KOLI VS. MAHARASHTRA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD [LAWS(BOM)-2004-7-83] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ERANDOL VS. RAMESH MUKUND LOKHANDE [LAWS(BOM)-2005-2-132] [REFERRED TO]
MINING ENGINEER VS. DAMODARLAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2021-8-141] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, RAJNAGAR VS. SUKHDEV RAIKWAR [LAWS(MPH)-2018-4-149] [REFERRED TO]
S K VENKATESAN VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT [LAWS(MAD)-2011-4-170] [REFERRED TO]
PWD THR DY DIR HORTICULTURE VS. SATYA PAL [LAWS(DLH)-2006-8-176] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ERANDOL VS. RAMESH MUKUND LOKHANDE [LAWS(BOM)-2005-2-155] [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD VS. R MUNUSAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2011-4-49] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH NAGAR & ORS VS. STATE OF M P & ORS [LAWS(MPH)-2016-6-173] [REFERRED]
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF IMMUNOLOGY VS. VINOD KUMAR GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2023-6-24] [REFERRED TO]
BALVIKAS YOJNA ADHIKARI VS. AHMEDBHAI [LAWS(GJH)-2012-3-76] [REFERRED TO]
MAHIPAL SINGH VS. NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2015-7-256] [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT [LAWS(P&H)-2004-9-10] [REFERRED TO]
BATHINDA DISTRICT COOPERATION MILK PRODUCERS UNION VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(P&H)-2012-8-94] [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2017-1-107] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD BHARDWAJ & ORS VS. STATE OF M P & ORS [LAWS(MPH)-2016-6-174] [REFERRED]
RAM KEWAL VS. DIRECTOR, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SUGARCANE RESEARCH [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-424] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR PRABHAKAR VS. TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANT INDIA LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2010-4-90] [REFERRED TO]
S JANAKIRAMAN VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT [LAWS(MAD)-2011-4-160] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY VS. LOKESH KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2022-9-186] [REFERRED TO]
Employer In Relation To Management Of Central Mine Planning And Design Institute Ltd. VS. Union Of India [LAWS(JHAR)-2003-7-171] [REFERRED TO]
NETAJI SUBHASH INSTITUE OF TECHNOLOGY VS. DILKHUSH BAIRWA [LAWS(DLH)-2006-4-172] [RELIED ON]
PRITISH RANJAN ROY VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2005-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. VS. ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2004-3-339] [REFERRED TO]
MOTI CHAND VS. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2018-8-250] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH SHARMA VS. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT & ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-3-424] [REFERRED TO]
DAYA SHANKAR PRASAD VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF WORKS, CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT [LAWS(DLH)-2012-11-274] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF WORKS CPWD VS. DAYA SHANKAR PRASAD [LAWS(DLH)-2012-9-285] [REFERRED TO]
GODAWANI MARATHWADA PATBANDHARE VIKAS MAHAMANDAL VS. DEVIDAS GANPAT PAWAR [LAWS(BOM)-2009-10-96] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA KRISHNA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. TUKARAM SAHABRAO VEER [LAWS(BOM)-2003-2-86] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
D. P. Mohapatra, J. -
(1.)Leave is granted.
(2.)The question that arises for determination in these appeals is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the termination of service of the respondents is 'retrenchment' in terms of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the ID Act') The further question that arises for consideration in this connection is whether Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the ID Act has any application in the case
(3.)The factual matrix of the case relevant for considering the questions raised may be stated thus : In the year 1993 the appellants have been entrusted with the responsibility of procuring wheat and supply the same to Haryana Warehousing Corporation. On account of non-availability of godowns heavy stock of grain had to be stored in the open area at Hasanpur Mandi. For watching and keeping care of the stock lying in the open area necessity of watchman/chowkidar was felt and sanction was sought by the District Manager of the appellant Society. The Managing Director having sanctioned the engagement of watchman/chowkidar the respondents were appointed on contract basis on payment of daily wages till the stocks are disposed of or for a period of three months. It was made clear in the order of the Managing Director that the number of chowkidars/Labourers kept by the District Manager should come down with the clearance of stock lying in the open. The respondents continued. The respondent Ram Niwas was engaged on 25-5-1993 whereas respondent Shiv Kumar was engaged on 2-6-93. The engagement of both the respondents was terminated with effect from 26-4-1994, after the stock lying in the open was cleared. Undisputedly, the provisions of Section 25 (f) of the ID Act were not complied with before disengagement/termination of the respondents.
(2.)The question that arises for determination in these appeals is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the termination of service of the respondents is 'retrenchment' in terms of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the ID Act') The further question that arises for consideration in this connection is whether Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the ID Act has any application in the case
(3.)The factual matrix of the case relevant for considering the questions raised may be stated thus : In the year 1993 the appellants have been entrusted with the responsibility of procuring wheat and supply the same to Haryana Warehousing Corporation. On account of non-availability of godowns heavy stock of grain had to be stored in the open area at Hasanpur Mandi. For watching and keeping care of the stock lying in the open area necessity of watchman/chowkidar was felt and sanction was sought by the District Manager of the appellant Society. The Managing Director having sanctioned the engagement of watchman/chowkidar the respondents were appointed on contract basis on payment of daily wages till the stocks are disposed of or for a period of three months. It was made clear in the order of the Managing Director that the number of chowkidars/Labourers kept by the District Manager should come down with the clearance of stock lying in the open. The respondents continued. The respondent Ram Niwas was engaged on 25-5-1993 whereas respondent Shiv Kumar was engaged on 2-6-93. The engagement of both the respondents was terminated with effect from 26-4-1994, after the stock lying in the open was cleared. Undisputedly, the provisions of Section 25 (f) of the ID Act were not complied with before disengagement/termination of the respondents.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.