LAWS(KER)-1993-4-8

VANAJAKSHY A S Vs. FACT LTD

Decided On April 07, 1993
A.S.VANAJAKSHY Appellant
V/S
FACT LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined FEDO, a unit of the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancorc Ltd. (for short "the FACT"), as a temporary typist/clerk for a period of one year with effect from 3rd October, 1983, The FACT is a company registered under the Companies Act and major percentage of the shares of this company are owned by the Union Government and the Slate Government. This company is an "authority" coming within the definition of "stale" under Article 12 of the Constitution. The petitioner continued as typist initially for a period of one year and after the expiry of that term she was again appointed for another one year with effect from 4th October, 1984. The term of the second appointment expired on 3rd October, 1985. Then she was again appointed for a period from 4th October, 1985, to 31st March, 1986. Then by Exhibit P-4 order, her appointment was extended for a period of another three months. Thus by various extension orders, the petitioner could continue as a typist/clerk till her service was recently terminated. While the petitioner was working as a temporary hand, a vacancy of typist/clerk arose in the Cochin Division of the FACT. The petitioner though applied, she was not selected and one Sheelamani was appointed in that post. After 15th March, 1991, the petitioner was riot given any extension order, but she was allowed to work on daily-paid basis and a sum of Rs. 30 per day was paid. While the petitioner was working, she was given a consolidated amount of Rs. 1,250 per mensem, whereas the permanent typist is getting an amount of Rs. 3,000 including all allowances. The petitioner though termed as a temporary employee, was, in fact, working against a permanent vacancy. The first respondent recovered employees' state insurance and provident fund contributions from the petitioner's salary. The petitioner, therefore, prays that she should have been paid salary and allowances due to a permanent employee. The petitioner further contends that her service should be regularised as a typist with effect from 3rd October, 1983.

(2.) RESPONDENTS Nos. 1 to 3 filed a counter-affidavit. It is alleged that the FACT Engineering and Design Organisation (for short "fedo") is the engineering and consultancy division of the FACT. The FEDO is mainly engaged in undertaking engineering and consultancy jobs relating to fertilizer and chemical plants. As in the case of any other consultancy organisation, the work load in the FEDO is seasonal and not static, depending upon the availability of projects for execution. The FEDO maintains a number of engineers and the required supporting staff in its permanent strength to meet normal working. In order to meet extra additional requirements of man-power at project sites, recruitment of temporary personnel on work-charged/temporary basis is being resorted to. These vacancies are not regular vacancies and if regular appointments are made to these requirements they will be rendered surplus on completion of project, thereby causing heavy financial commitment on the company. Selection and engagement of such work-charged/temporary personnel are done for the project as per the temporary requirement. The permanent vacancies are filled by the personnel department after fulfilling all statutory requirements. But, these specifications are not always followed in the case of engagement of work-charged/temporary employees. The services of temporary employees are automatically terminated as soon as the piece work is over. There is no bar in engaging the services of such persons for other project sites. Salary and other benefits given to the permanent employees are as per the long-term tripartite agreement and the salary of temporary appointees are not covered by such agreement.

(3.) THE petitioner was engaged at the PHENOL project as temporary typist/clerk on work-charged basis. She was also appointed similarly at the Cochin Division of the FEDO.