- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant, Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro (hereinafter referred as 'the Company') against the judgment dated 30th September, 2003 passed by learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 2186 of 1996 (R), whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, as was preferred by the appellant-Company against the Award dated 18th December, 1995 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro in Reference Case No. 11 of 1990.
(2.) AS the case can be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one, as detailed hereunder : The workman, Chandra Sekhar Jha was engaged as Khalasi for a period of three months' on 6th September, 1984 in Blast Furnace of Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro. It was extended from time to time and his name was struck off from the role of the Company on 1st January, 1986 without any notice to him. The conciliation having failed, at the instance of Union, the Government of Bihar, in exercise of power conferred under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as 'i. D. Act, 1947'), referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Bokaro by Notification No. 4/d2-14054/ 89, L. E and T-522 dated 17th May, 1990 : Whether the removal from service of Shri Chandra Shekhar Jha-Staff No. C-04720 Blast Furnace, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City by the Management is justified ? If not, whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement and what kind of relief ? Before the Presiding Officer, the Union on behalf of workman took plea that provision of Section 25f of the ID Act, 1947 was not followed. The workman had completed 240 days of continuous of service in the Company but without giving one month's notice in writing indicating reason for retrenchment and without paying the retrenchment compensation, the workman was removed from service. The Management-Company specifically pleaded that the case of the workman was covered by Section 2 (00) (bb) of the ID Act, 1947 and, therefore, no prior notice was required to be given nor retrenchment compensation was payable. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro vide its Award dated 18th December, 1995 answered the Reference in favour of workman and against the management-Company and held the action of the Management in doing away with the services of the workman as illegal, mala fide and unjustified, Section 25f having been violated. The Management-Company was also directed to absorb the concerned workman in the regular cadre of Khalasi with effect from the date he had completed 240 days of service. Learned Single Judge affirmed the Award by judgment dated 30th September, 2003 and rejected the claim of the Management-Company on one of the grounds that the Management-Company had not taken the specific plea that the appointment of the concerned workman was contractual in nature. The letter of appointment dated 6th September, 1984 with regard to workman, Chandra Sekhaar Jha was exhibited as Ext Ml before the Labour Court, Bokaro, enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The terms and conditions including duration of appointment has been mentioned therein, which is quoted hereunder :JUDGEMENT_2006_TLJHAR0_2006Html1.htm It was extended from time to time, till by order dated 11/12th December, 1985. It was ordered not to extend casual term in respect of five workmen including the workman, Chandra Shekhar Jha, for the reasons mentioned therein, which is quoted hereunder :JUDGEMENT_2006_TLJHAR0_2006Html2.htm The aforesaid letter dated 11/12th December, 1985, enclosed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, was also placed by the Management-Company as one of the Exhibits i. e. , Ext.-M2.
(3.) FROM the aforesaid two evidences, it will be evident that the Management Company brought to the notice of the Labour Court that the workman was engaged on contract basis for a specified period, which was extended from time to time and also shown grounds for not extending the period of service beyond the fixed period. Learned Single Judge failed to notice the aforesaid relevant exhibits, particularly, Exhibits Ml and M2 and erred in holding that the Management-Company had not taken plea that the appointment of the concerned workman was contractual in nature and that the said contract was not renewed. Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the I. D. Act, 1947 defines 'retrenchment' but does not include termination of services of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation on that behalf contained therein, [see? Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the I. D. Act. The Supreme Court in the case of "harmohinder Singh v. Kharga Canteen also held that Section 25f is not applicable in the case of termination of service on expiry of contract of service for a fixed term. The appointment of workman having been made for a fixed term, extended from time to time and subsequently such extension having not been granted, it was not required to notice the workman, showing the grounds for non-extension of service, as the service automatically comes to an end on completion of the terms of engagement. The case of the workman being covered by Section 2 (oo) (bb), Section 25f was not attracted in his case and thereby, there was no requirement for the employer to give him one month's notice nor retrenchment compensation as required under Section 25f of the I. D. Act, 1947.;