TAPAN KUMAR JANA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER CALCUTTA TELEPHONES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN. this appeal, the appellant Tapan Kumar Jana has challenged the propriety of the judgment of a learned single Judge of this court discharging the Rule Nisi obtained by the appellant on his application under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE case of the appellant was that he was appointed a casual employee of the Calcutta Telephones by the respondent no. 2, the Sub-Divisional Officer of Phones (South), Russa External, on December 6, 1976 and he continued in service till March 31, 1977. Thereafter, he was again employed after a break in service of seven days on april 8, 1977 and continued in uninterrupted service, without any break whatsoever, for about 15 months, when his service was verbally terminated on july 1, 1978 by the order of the respondent no. 2. His terms of engagement were not on 'no work no pay' basis, but he was paid his wages on the 5th day of every month for the work rendered by him in the preceding month; the amount was calculated at a daily rate which was Rs. 5. 80 per day when his service was terminated. He also used to sign the attendance register regularly.

(3.) THE grievance of the appellant was that at the time of verbal termination of his service he was neither paid any retrenchment compensation, nor was he given any notice as required under the law for effecting such termination of service or any pay in lieu of such notice. It was, contended by the appellant that inasmuch as the Calcutta telephones carried on systematic activity organized by the co-operation between the employer and the employees for production and or distribution of roods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes, it was an industry. The further contention of the appellant was that as he was in uninterrupted service under the Calcutta telephones for a period of about 15 months before July 1, 1978, the date of termination of his service and, in any event, as he had actually worked under the said employer for not less than 240 days during the period of 12 Calendar months preceding July 1, 1978, the termination of his service amounted to retrenchment. It was contended that such termination of service not having been made in accordance with the provision of section 25 F of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947, he should be deemed to be in service of the Calcutta telephones.