Rajeshwar Singh, J. - (1.) IT is shocking to note that exploitation of labour takes place even in institutions where the State Government has some say and some times even in Government departments. One such method of exploitation which has been seen, is to appoint a person on such daily wages which will in one month come to less than the amount that is paid to workers working in the same capacity on regular basis. It is violation of equal pay for equal work. Another way that is often seen is to give artificial break of one or two days without the least jurisdiction and then to argue that the person has not been in continuous employment. Such artificial break has no meaning in particular cases. Thirdly it is seen that (here is a regular vacancy but instead of employing a man temporarily they employ him for a fixed period and then argue that the person was employed for a fixed period and he has no right to continue even if he is thrown out without any justification and the vacancy continues. Some such thing has happened in this case as well. The petitioner is a woman and not an educated one. She was employed as a peon in the District Cooperative Bank. She says in paragraph 8 of her writ petition that she had put more than 240 days continuous service in each calendar year since her appointment in 1985 in counter -affidavit reply to this paragraph was given in paragraph 7. There a vague denial was made. Many facts were stated but it was not said clearly that the petitioner had not put 240 days service in the calendar year. So it is to be taken that she has put in more than 240 days service. Here I may add that a break of few days between two appointments of her will have no effect. Then her grievance in paragraph 10 is that under oral orders she has been stopped from working. When she has put in 240 days service and it is not disputed that Bank is an industry and the petitioner is a workman she could not be thrown out without following the procedure of retrenchment which had admittedly been not followed.
(2.) THE argument of the learned counsel for the opposite party is that in accordance with the definition of retrenchment given in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 retrenchment does not include termination of service of a workman as a result of the non renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and workman concerned On its expiry or on such contract being terminated under an stipulation in that behalf contained therein The argument proceeds to say that the petitioner was appointed for a fixed period and the fixed period has expired. The fallacy in this argument is that the opposite party mistaking an order of appointment for a fixed period for a contract of employment. A contract of employment and an order of employment are two different things. A contract of employment is one which is entered into by two parties where in terms of employment are agreed and therein it is given as to for what period that contract of employment is being entered into. When according to that contract of employment, the employment comes to an end by efflux of time it may not amount to retrenchment in accordance with the definition relied upon. But when an employer passes an order as he is entitled to pass under some rules for employing some person and in that order he limits the period to a particular date, it will not be a contract of employment and it will not be covered by the clause relied upon and termination of service after that date will be for a reason other than expiry of, contract of employment. So it will be retrenchment and in that case procedure for retrenchment will have to be followed which has not been followed in this case. If we hold otherwise, it will be giving a licence to the employer to pass order employing a person for a particular period and then to throw out the workman at his sweet will and this will result in exploitation of the labour of the worst kind. So this argument of the opposite party that it is not retrenchment is rejected.
(3.) THEN it has been stated that the petitioner has come to this court after undue delay. It is said that the delay is of about one year, the reply of the petitioner is that at first she has been approaching the opposite party to redress her grievance. This is a good explanation. Even if that be not so, she was an ignorant woman and she came to the Court when she came to know that reliefs can be had in such cases and some other co -workers were able to get relief. If the ignorant woman, in these circumstances did not rush to the Court immediately her writ petition should not be thrown away on this ground.;