TAPAN KUMAR JANA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER, CALCUTTA TELEPHONES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's case is that he was appointed as an employee of the Calcutta Telephones by the Sub- Divisional Officer of Phones (South), Russa External, the respondent No. 2 herein for the first time on 6th Dec. 1976 and continued in his service till 31st March, 1977. Thereafter, he was again employed after a break in service of 7 days on 8th April 1977 and continued in service uninterrupted and without any break whatsoever for about 15 months, when his service was verbally terminated on 1st July, 1978 by the order of the respondent No. 2. According to the petitioner he was described as a 'casual' employee. It is further stated by the petitioner that he worked as a helper of wiremen in the matter of installation of telephones.

(2.) It is stated by the petitioner that though he was described as a casual labourer yet his services were utilised on regular basis inasmuch as he was to perform work of regular nature which formed integral part of installation of telephones. The petitioner has further stated that the work which he was entrusted to do was of a routine and regular nature and somebody or the other has still to perform the said job and the basis of his appointment was regular although he was termed as casual labourer. According to the petitioner his term of engagement was not on no work no pay basis' but he was paid wages on the 5th day of every month for the work rendered in the preceding month, the amount being calculated at a daily rate (which was Rs. 5.80 P. per day when the petitioner's service was terminated) for all the days of the whole of the month including Sundays and holidays when he did not have to do any work. According to the petitioner he was not entitled to get wages if he remained absent but he always got his wages even for those days when he was present but no work was offered to him and also for those holidays when he did not attend his work. According to the petitioner his work was of regular nature which has got to be performed even today and therefore cannot be said to be of short duration and further there were casual labourers, whose names were borne on the same register with the permanent staff of the Calcutta Telephones. According to the petitioner the work allotted to him was essentially manual in nature. It is further stated by the petitioner that he also used to sign the attendance register regularly.

(3.) Petitioner's grievance is that at the time of verbal termination of his service the petitioner was neither paid any retrenchment compensation or other compensation of any manner, nor he was given any notice as required under the law for effecting such termination of service or any pay in lieu of such notice. The petitioner's case is that inasumch as the 'Calcutta Telephones' carries on systematic activity organised by cooperation between employer and employee for production and/or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes it is an industry and as the petitioner was in uninterrupted service under the 'Calcutta Telephones' for a period of about 15 months before 1st July, 1978, the date of termination of service of the petitioner and in any event he had actually worked under the said employer for not less than 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months preceding 1st July, 1978 termination of the petitioner's service amounted to retrenchment and the same admittedly not having been made in compliance with Section 25F was ineffective and invalid and as such the petitioner should be deemed to be in service of the respondent 'Calcutta Telephones'.