TATA INTERNATIONAL LTD. Vs. SANGEETA AKODIA LRS. RAJKUNWARBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by Award dated 31.7.2018 (declared on 29.8.2018) passed by Labour Court, Dewas whereby the relief of reinstatement into the service with full back wages and other consequential benefits has been granted in favour of the respondent.

(2.) Facts of the case, in short, are as under:

(3.) Shri Kuldeep Bhargava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned Award in unsustainable in law on the ground that the respondent was appointed for fixed term and discontinued from service due to non-renewal of contract which is out of the purview of 'retrenchment' as defined under section 2 (oo) of the Act of 1947. As per definition of (bb) of section 2(oo) of 'retrenchment', the termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman does not amount to 'retrenchment'. Therefore, the petitioner was not bound to follow the provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 which are conditions precedent to retrench the workmen. He has further placed reliance over the definition of "fixed term employment's employee" given in Section 2(vii) of M.P. Industrial M.P. No. 4571/2018 Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963 and according to which, an employee who has been engaged on the basis of contract employment for a fixed period. He further submitted that "temporary employee" has been defined in Section 2(vi) of the Rules of 1963 which means an employee who has been employed for work which is essentially of a temporary character. The temporary employee who has worked for more than six months shall be deemed to be a "permanent employee", therefore, the respondent cannot be treated as a temporary employee acquiring the status of permanent employee after working of six months for the purposes of benefit of Section 25F of the Act of 1947. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the judgment of apex Court passed in the case of Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corpn. V/s. Paramjeet Singh : 2019 LAB. I.C. 3105; Bhavnagar Municipal Corpn. V/s. Salimbhai Umarbhai Mansuri : (2013) 14 SCC 456; decision of Division Bench of High Court of Bombay in the case of Elpro International Ltd. V/s. K.B. Joshi : 1987 Mh.L.J. 376; and decision of Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat V/s. Lokendrasinh Pratapsinh Chauhan : 2018 LAB. I.C. 161.