M.P. Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. Dinesh Kumar Agrawal
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2334/2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) 2504/2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) 2504/2000)
Petitioner: M.P. Electricity Board & Anr.
Respondent: Dinesh Kumar Agrawal
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2334/2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) 2504/2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) 2504/2000)
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 23, 2001
Head Note:
LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL LAWS
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 2(oo), (bb) – Termination – Employee appointed for six months – Clear stipulation that he can be regularly appointed on successful training and passing of written exams and also that six months’ period can be extended or curtailed any time – Written test not cleared – Termination – If unjustified for want of clear term of termination on failure to pass exams. Held that there is clear stipulation and case falls in exception to Section 2(oo), (bb). However, no interference in orders as the employee was still continuing in service pursuant to orders of re-instatement as affirmed by High Court. (Paras 5, 6)
Cases Reffered:
1. M. Venugopal v. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Machilipatnam A.P. & Anr (JT 1994 (1) SC 281)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant-Electricity Board before us employed the respondent on the terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment letter dated 28.11.1984 which provided that (i) he will be on training for a period of six months and the same may be extended or curtailed as the case may be; (ii) on satisfactory completion of training and passing the written test conducted thereafter he will be eligible to be considered for appointment as officer, Grade III and in case he fails in written test/appraisal test after training, he will be liable for termination.
3. The respondent not having passed the requisite test, his period of training was extended for further term and ultimately it is stated that he not having passed the said test his services were terminated on 10.3.1986 itself in terms of the appointment order.
4. The respondent raised a dispute as to termination of his services and the labour court by an order made on 17.2.1990 held that the termination of the services of the respondent was not proper and directed his reinstatement with payment of back wages. The matter was carried to the High Court. The High Court by an order dated 27.8.1999 held that there is no clear term of termination provided in the letter of appointment or in the agreement of appointment on failure of passing the necessary tests and hence the appellant cannot take advantage of the provisions contained in Sub-section (bb) of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, upheld the order made by the labour court.
5. In this appeal by special leave, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that in view of the law explained by this Court in (JT 1994 (1) SC 281) – M Venugopal v. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Machilipatnam A.P. & Anr., the case of the respondent does not fall within the purview of retrenchment because his services came to be terminated as a result of non-renewal of contract of employment and the stipulation provided in the contract itself. We find great force in this submission. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent brought to our notice the view taken by the High Court in this regard that there is no clear term of termination in the order of appointment. The order of appointment refers to terms and conditions mentioned in Annexure 1 thereto and Clause 4 of Annexure 1 clearly mentioned that in case a candidate fails to qualify test or the appraisal test, he or she shall be liable for termination. If that is so, we do not think there is any warrant for the conclusion reached by the High Court that there is no clause for termination of the candidate who does not pass the appropriate test. Clearly the case falls within the exception of Sub-clause (bb) of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the termination is as stipulated in the contract. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court cannot be justified at all.
6. Even though this is the position in law, we do not think we should interfere with the order made by the labour court as confirmed by the High Court in view of the fact that the respondent had been appointed as early as 1984 and his services were sought to be terminated by an order made in 1986 while the labour court made an order on 17.2.1990 pursuant to which he is reinstated in service and thereafter the High Court upheld that order and it is admitted that the respondent is in service of the appellant-Board even now. If that is so we do not think it would be appropriate to upset that state of affair by interfering with the same. Clarifying the legal position as aforesaid, the appeal shall stand dismissed.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant-Electricity Board before us employed the respondent on the terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment letter dated 28.11.1984 which provided that (i) he will be on training for a period of six months and the same may be extended or curtailed as the case may be; (ii) on satisfactory completion of training and passing the written test conducted thereafter he will be eligible to be considered for appointment as officer, Grade III and in case he fails in written test/appraisal test after training, he will be liable for termination.
3. The respondent not having passed the requisite test, his period of training was extended for further term and ultimately it is stated that he not having passed the said test his services were terminated on 10.3.1986 itself in terms of the appointment order.
4. The respondent raised a dispute as to termination of his services and the labour court by an order made on 17.2.1990 held that the termination of the services of the respondent was not proper and directed his reinstatement with payment of back wages. The matter was carried to the High Court. The High Court by an order dated 27.8.1999 held that there is no clear term of termination provided in the letter of appointment or in the agreement of appointment on failure of passing the necessary tests and hence the appellant cannot take advantage of the provisions contained in Sub-section (bb) of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, upheld the order made by the labour court.
5. In this appeal by special leave, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that in view of the law explained by this Court in (JT 1994 (1) SC 281) – M Venugopal v. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Machilipatnam A.P. & Anr., the case of the respondent does not fall within the purview of retrenchment because his services came to be terminated as a result of non-renewal of contract of employment and the stipulation provided in the contract itself. We find great force in this submission. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent brought to our notice the view taken by the High Court in this regard that there is no clear term of termination in the order of appointment. The order of appointment refers to terms and conditions mentioned in Annexure 1 thereto and Clause 4 of Annexure 1 clearly mentioned that in case a candidate fails to qualify test or the appraisal test, he or she shall be liable for termination. If that is so, we do not think there is any warrant for the conclusion reached by the High Court that there is no clause for termination of the candidate who does not pass the appropriate test. Clearly the case falls within the exception of Sub-clause (bb) of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the termination is as stipulated in the contract. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court cannot be justified at all.
6. Even though this is the position in law, we do not think we should interfere with the order made by the labour court as confirmed by the High Court in view of the fact that the respondent had been appointed as early as 1984 and his services were sought to be terminated by an order made in 1986 while the labour court made an order on 17.2.1990 pursuant to which he is reinstated in service and thereafter the High Court upheld that order and it is admitted that the respondent is in service of the appellant-Board even now. If that is so we do not think it would be appropriate to upset that state of affair by interfering with the same. Clarifying the legal position as aforesaid, the appeal shall stand dismissed.
