SURENDRA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. VIKAS ADHIKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was employed as a Junior Engineer on daily wages for a period of 100 days vide order dated 22-9-1988 in a scheme known as the Rural Employment Programme. There were two similar employment welfare schemes operating, known as the Rural Employment programme (REP) and the Rural Landless Employment Guarantee programme (RLEGP). The two Schemes were merged into one elaborate scheme known as the Jawaharlal Nehru Rozgar Yojna or Jawahar Rozgar yojna. On completion of 100 days, his employment would have terminated automatically; however, the authority passed a specific order of termination dated 29-12-1988. Instead of being rendered jobless the appellant was offered yet another temporary employment in a scheme known as Jeevan dhara vide order dated 17-1-1989. The employment was extended from time to time up to 12-6-1989. The last order of appointment was for a period of 7 days issued on 24-6-1989 which came to an end on 30-6-1989. The appellant, and a few others similarly employed filed writ petitions in the High Court, which by an interim order protected their employment. However, the posts came to be abolished and the appellant's employment as also the employment of other similarly situated persons came to be terminated with effect from 7-5-1991, consequent upon the posts having been abolished. The writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court holding that as the posts themselves have been abolished the question of regularization did not arise. The High Court also held that the workmen given employment under the schemes got the employment on an ad hoc basis, and from the very beginning knew that the employment was of a temporary nature coterminous with the Scheme itself, and therefore they could not be said to have been retrenched within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947, so as to be entitled to the relief of reinstatement if the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were not complied with. The appellant filed a writ appeal which has also been dismissed by the Division Bench of the High court. This is an appeal by special leave.

(2.) Shri Sanghi, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, submitted that without regard to the nature of employment, once a workman has worked in continuous employment for a period of 240 days his employment could not have been terminated except by complying with the provisions of Section 25-F; else he would be deemed to have been retrenched and entitled to the relief of reinstatement. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that the appellant is not entitled to any relief and the view taken by the High Court cannot be found fault with.

(3.) The nature of employment under the Jawaharlal Nehru Rozgar Yojna came to be examined by this Court in Delhi Development Horticulture employees' Union v. Delhi Admn. The Court found that the Scheme under which the petitioners therein were employed was evolved to provide income for those who are below the poverty line and particularly during the periods when they are without any source of livelihood and therefore without any income whatsoever. Such schemes were further meant for the rural poor, for the object of the Scheme was to start tackling the problem of poverty from that end. The object was not to provide the right to work as such even to the rural poor much less to the employed in general. The Union of India had filed a detailed affidavit showing the purpose and working of such schemes, which in their very nature could provide some employment to some people for some time and not an employment to all the employed for all times. The court held,