SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER NATIONAL HIGHWAY PROJECT Vs. BAIDHAR LENKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the Superintending Engineer, National Highway Project under Works and Transport Department of the Government of Orissa. The National Highway Project was established by the State Government with the aid of the Central Government from the funds of the International Development Association and is being controlled and managed as a departmental activity by the works department of the Government of Orissa under the direct supervision and control of officers who are civil servants appointed by the State Government. Opposite Party 1 was appointed as a roller-helper with effect from 1-763 under the defunct Baripada highway division. He was subsequently promoted to the post of roller-driver with effect from 1-9-64. He worked for some time. Again he was appointed as a roller-driver with effect from 20:3-67 by the Assistant Mechanical Engineer, Balasore, with the approval of the Executive Engineer, Balasore highway division. The terms and conditions of his appointment were that the post was purely temporary and might be terminated without any prior notice. When the project work came to a close, the services of opposite party 1 were no more required and his services were terminated with effect from 14-11-68 (A. N.) after expiry of one month's notice.

(2.) OPPOSITE party 1 filed an application (Annexure A) under Section 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Orissa, Bhubaneshwar (opposite party 2) claiming to be entitled to receive from the petitioner certain benefits which are capable of being computed in terms of money and with a prayer that opposite party 2 do determine the amount due to opposite party 1. The case was posted for hearing to 30-3-70. The petitioner was away at Delhi on some unavoidable work immediately preceding the date of hearing. A petition for adjournment (Annexure B) filed by the petitioner was rejected by opposite party 2. The case was heard and disposed of on the date fixed by on order (Annexure C ). By the impugned order opposite party 2 allowed the application of opposite party 1 and directed that he was entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 415-00 from the petitioner as retrenchment compensation. The writ application has been filed under Articles Section 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the impugned order (Annexure C ).

(3.) THE only contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the National Highway Project of the Works Department is not an industry and opposite party 1 is not a workman. He was a Government servant appointed purely on temporary basis his services being terminable without any notice. He is, therefore, not entitled to claim any benefit under Section 33c (2) of the Act.