PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. v. SUDESH KUMAR PURI

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 409

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, TARUN CHATTERJEE

Case summary

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. v. SUDESH KUMAR PURI.pdf

Judgment text

> -~ PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. v. SUDESH KUMAR PURI FEBRUARY 9, 2007 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ. ] Industrial Disputes Act, /947-s. 2(oo)(hb)-Applicability of-Person -+ --,. engaged as private Meter Reader on contract basis-Payment made at fixed rate on basis ofnumber ofmeters read-On expiry ofcontract period, services dispensed with-Held: Engagement being for specific period and conditional, s. 2(oo)(bb) was clearly·applicable. Appellant-Board engaged Respondent as a private Meter'Reader on contract basis. During the period ofcontract, Respondent was paid a sum of Re. 1 for each meter reading. At the expiry ofcontract period, and in view of appointment of regular Meter Readers, services oHtespondent were dispensed with. .....

-1' The Labour Court held that Respondent had worked in the capacity of a Meter Reader for a considerably long period; that he had completed service of more than 240 days within the preceding twelve months, and he having been retrenched without following the procedure provided under s. 25-F ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was entitled to be re-instated. The High Court upheld the order of re-instatement holding that the contract was a camouflage by the Appellant-Board with a view to avoid the provisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence the present appeals. -~ Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: There was an agreement gQ. verning engagement. The payment was made per meter reading at a fixed rate and there was no regular employment ever offered to any of the respondents. The material on record clearly established that the engagement of the respondent was for specific '' period and conditional.

I~ appears that on the appointment of regular meter ~readers, the engagement has been dispensed with. The contracts clearly governed the terms ofengagement. The provisions ofSection 2(oo)(bb) ofthe Act clearly applies to the facts of the present case. Above being the position, >( ... the orders passed by the Labour Court and the High Court are clearly ,J_ untenable and are quashed. (Paras 7, 9 & 10] (411-G-H; 412-D-E] Steel Authority of India Ltd. And Ors. v. National Union Waterfront Workers and Ors. , (2001] 7 SCC 1, distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 648 of2007. From the final Judgment and Order dated 21. 3. 2005 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in C. W. P. No. 18634/2003. _. +... -.. WITH C. A. Nos. 649, 650 and 651 of2007. Jayshree Anand, Karunakar Mahalik and Ashwani Bhardwaj for the ! ;.. - Appellants. R. K. Kapoor, M. K. Verma and Anis Ahmed Khan for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by j DR.

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. j-..... 2. Challenge in these appeals is to the consolidated orders passed by the Division Bench ofthe Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the four writ petitions filed by the appellant No. I-Punjab State Electricity Board (in short the 'Board'). The respondent in each case was engaged as Meter Reader on contract basis by the appellant-Board. After disengagement he made a claim stating that he had worked for a considerably long continuous period, his services have been terminated by the Board without following any procedure and without payment of retrenchment compensation. Claim for reinstatement with back wages was made. On failure of the conciliation proceedings, matter was referred by the concerned State Government to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as the 'Labour Court') under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act').

Stand of the appellant before the Labour Court was that the applicant '. was engaged as private Meter Reader on contract basis which was renewed + ·t on record that there was an agreement governing engagement. The payment was made per meter reading at a fixed rate and there \\-as no regular employment ever offered to any of the respondents. The provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) ; of the Act clearly applies to the facts of the present case. 8. Section 2(oo)(bb) reads as follows: "2(oo) retrenchment means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise th~n as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include- (a).... (b).... (bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the nonrenewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or ofsuch contract being tenninated under a stipulation in that b~half contained therein; or" 9.

The material on record clearly established that the engagement of the respondent was for specific period and conditional. It appears that on the appointment of regular meter readers, the engagement has been dispensed with. The contracts clearly governed the terms of engagement. ' I0. Above being the position, the orders passed by the Labour Court t and the High Court are clearly untenable and are quashed. In two cases the concerned respondents have been engaged again on contractual basis. It shall not be construed that we have expressed any opinion on such subsequent contractual engagement. I I. Appeals are allowed without any order as to costs. B. B. B. Appeals allowed. ..