TATA CONSULTING ENGINEERS Vs. VALSALA K.NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Tata Consulting Engineers seeks to challenge the legality and correctness of the award passed by the 6th Labour Court Bombay on 30.11.1994 whereby the said Court in the reference directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent Ms.Valsala K.Nair with continuity of service and back wages from 28/2/1987.

(2.) TATA Consulting Engineers (the employer) claims to be a division of Tata Sons Limited and is a public limited company under the Companies Act and it is engaged in the engineering consultancy profession in the fields such as Thermal, Hydro, Nuclear Power Plants, projects like Radio Telescope, Fueling machines, Industrial and Chemical Projects, Rural Electrification, Water Systems and Water Supply Schemes. Ms. Valsala K.Nair (the workman) was temporarily appointed vide order dated 29.1.1986 on consolidated salary of Rs.700/- per month. Her appointment was extended by subsequent orders dated 31.3.86, 23.6.86, 27.9.86 and 18.12.86. Thus, ultimately her appointment was extended up to 27th January 1987. By the order dated February 25, 1987 the workman was informed by the employer that her service would no longer be required from the close of work on February 27, 1987. It was mentioned therein that she would be entitled for one months's salary in lieu of notice and 15 days salary as retrenchment compensation. The workman challenged her termination by raising industrial dispute which was ultimately referred for adjudication to the 6th Labour Court. Pursuant to the reference of industrial dispute to the 6th Labour Court, the workman filed Statement of Claim. The termination was challenged by the workman on various grounds including breach of mandatory provisions of Section 25F and that despite availability of work and retaining junior persons, the workman's services were terminated which were violative of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act as well as such termination was improper and malafide. The employer filed written statement before the 6th Labour Court and denied the claim of the workman. The employer set up the case that it is engaged in engineering consultancy profession and engages about 1200 employees including 800 employees and 400 workmen in unionised cadre. The project works undertaken by the employer continue for a period of 2-3 years and since the projects are of short term duration it does not keep all the employees on its permanent rolls and it is required to engage temporary hands depending upon temporary needs. According to the employer, the workman was appointed initially for two months to meet the exigency of work arising out of temporary increase in work load and her appointment was extended from time to time because of increase in temporary work. However, later on the employer decided to computerise its accounts and for that it had to employ additional hands to look after clerical work in the accounts and there was temporary work of bonus and audit work and, therefore, the workman 's appointment was extended. The employer set up the case in the written statement that though the services of the employee come to end on 27.1.1987 but her service was continued verbally and thereafter by the communication dated 25.2.1987 the workman was informed that her contract would not be renewed after 27.2.1987. According to the employer, she was offered notice pay and compensation. The Labour Court recorded the evidence and after hearing the parties held that the workman was doing the routine work which was of continuous nature and the termination of the workman amounted to retrenchment. The Labour Court also held that there was breach of mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act was also breached by the employer. The Labour Court also held that termination of the workman was malafide and the employer acted with ulterior motive. Accordingly, the labour Court ordered reinstatement with continuity of services and back wages.

(3.) SECTION 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act defines retrenchment which means the termination by the employer of the service of the workman for any reason whatsoever otherwise than punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action. It however does not include termination of service of workman as a result of non-renewal of contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or on such contract being terminated at the end of stipulation in that behalf contained there under as is provided in clause (bb). In the present case, it would be seen that though the workman was employed initially for a period of two months by the order dated 29.1.1986, her employment was extended by subsequent orders. The last of such order placed on record is the order dated 18.12.1986 according to which the services of the workman was extended up to 27.1.1987. It is not disputed by the employer that even thereafter the workman was continued in the service, though according to the employer, the said continuation was verbal and only up to 27.2.1987. The order dated 27.2.1987 does not say that after the expiry of period on 27.1.87 the service of the workman was extended verbally only up to 27.2.1987. Thus, on the facts which have come on record, it cannot be said that the case was covered under clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) and it cannot be said that the workman's termination was not retrenchment. In view of the facts aforestated, the judgment of the Apex Court in Escorts Limited (supra) has no application.