PRAKASH M V S S Vs. NATIONAL SHIP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were initially appointed as draughtsmen in the respondent-organization for a period of five years under a contract, dated january 3, 1998. Much before the expiry of the term of five years, the respondent issued fresh orders of contractual appointment, dated october 1, 2001. In this contract, no tenure, as such, was fixed. However a clause was incorporated to the effect that it can be brought to an end by either party to it, by giving notice of three months. Invoking the said clause, the respondents addressed individual letters, dated march 2, 2007, informing the petitioners that after carefully evaluating the organizational needs and financial position and works on hand, it has been decided to terminate their services, by issuing a notice of three months. This writ petition is filed against the individual communications issued to the petitioners.

(2.) PETITIONERS contend that the action of the respondents is in clear violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act' ). It is urged that though the contract of employment contained a clause, enabling termination thereof by giving three months notice, the termination cannot be brought under the cover of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act, inasmuch as the contract, dated October 1, 2001, was not for any fixed tenure.

(3.) THE respondents filed a counter affidavit, disclosing the circumstances, that led to the issuance of the orders of termination. It is urged that the appointment of the petitioners was purely contractual in nature and such appointments were brought to an end in terms of me clauses of contract. The respondents plead that the termination had to be effected, on account of the precarious financial condition and lack of adequate work.