STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. DEEPA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE relevant facts lie in a narrow compass. The respondent was engaged as a labourer on daily wages by Merta City Sub-Division of the Public Health Engineering Department of the Government of Rajasthan on 1-2-1991. He continued to remain engaged up to 31-7-1991 where after his employment was discontinued. The respondent filed a writ petition laying challenge to the impugned action of the appellant discontinuing his employment as a daily - wager. A learned Single Judge of the High Court held that the appellant was motivated for discontinuing the engagement of the respondent as a daily - wager with a view to see that he did not complete the period of engagement for 240 days which would have resulted in conferring certain benefits on him under the ID Act, 1947, and therefore, the termination of employment of the respondent amounted to an unfair labour practice. The writ petition was allowed and the respondent was directed to be reinstated. The writ appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Feeling aggrieved by the two judgments of the High Court, this appeal has been filed by special leave.

(2.) THE fact that the respondent remained employed as a daily - wager in the Public Health Engineering Department, Sub-Division Merta City for the period between 1-2-1991 and 31-7-1991 is not disputed. On 27-7-1991 the Superintending Engineer issued a general order and circulated the same to Assistant Engineers in different sub-divisions under him whereby it was directed that such of the daily - wagers as had not completed 240 days be removed with immediate effect. It was further notified that if any sub-division was short of workers in any of the schemes or projects then they should make arrangements at their own level. This latter part of the order has been interpreted by the High Court to mean that although the work was available and it was left open to the Assistant Engineers in the sub-divisions to employ workers in the schemes wherever required yet the services of the respondent were dispensed with, meaning thereby, that though the need for engaging labour was surviving and still the services of the respondent were dispensed with so as to see that the respondent did not complete 240 days' employment.

(3.) THERE is no material available on record to hold that the statement made in the counter - affidavit is incorrect. As the respondent was engaged for work of a temporary nature which came to an end with the end of the summer season and a decision was taken to discontinue simpliciter the employment of such daily - wagers who had not completed 240 days, it cannot be said that the appellants had indulged in any unfair labour practice. The termination of employment in the present case is covered by sub-clause (bb) of clause (po) of S.2 of the ID Act, 1947.