RAM KISHAN Vs. MANAGEMENT OF AMERICAN EXPRESS BANKING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27th August 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition (C) No. 3387 -88 of 2006.

(2.) THE Appellant was appointed with the Respondent No.1 American Express Banking Corporation as a Cleaner for a fixed term of three years from 15th October 1999 to 14th October 2002. The dispute arising over the termination of the services of the Appellant at the end of the contractual period was taken up for conciliation. The Assistant Labour Court, Faridabad submitted a failure report on 30th September 2003. Thereafter by a communication dated 21st November 2003, the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour informed the Appellant that the Ministry did not consider the dispute fit for adjudication for the following reason:

(3.) ACCORDING to the Appellant, his appointment for a period of three years on contractual basis was in fact a camouflage since the work of cleaning was of a perennial nature, the work was still available and in fact the Respondent No.1 had employed more than ten workers for the said work through a contractor. It was contended that the Government could not decline to make the reference as there was a prima facie dispute on the issue whether the termination was lawful. Respondent No.1 countered the above submission by pointing out that the termination of the services of the Appellant was not retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (,,ID Act) and, therefore, Section 25G and/or Section 25H of the ID Act were not attracted. Further this was not even a case of unfair labour practice under Clause 10 of Schedule 5 to the ID Act.