DEEPAK KUMAR PANDA Vs. NATIONAL ALUMINIUM COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner who was working as a French Interpreter in Nationa Aluminium Company Limited from February, 1980 till December, 1989 oh contract basis, challenges the action of the opp parties in not granting him renewal/extension of service, even though, persons similarly placed and even his juniors have been allowed to continue. The further grievance of the petitioner Is that his representation for permanent absorption in service has illegally not been considered to keep him out of service for no reason whatsoever.

(2.) THE undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a French Interpreter by National Aluminium Company Limited (hereinafter called as 'Company'.) on contract basis initially for a period of one year in a consolidated salary of Rs. 1400/ - per month being duly selected for the post and pursuant to the letter of appointment issued on 25 -1 -19 5, he joined the Company on 11 -2 -1985. The appointment was further extended for another year with a rise in consolidated salary from Rs. 1400/ - to Rs. 1500/ - per month on the terms and conditions laid under Annexure -2. the order of appointment dated 11 -2 -1985. However, the petitioner alongwith other French Interpreters continued to work beyond one year even after his term of appointment expired on 11 -2 -1987 and the formal letter of appointment/extension of his -service was made on 21 -2 -.1987 vide. Anuexure -3, wherein the consolidated salary was again enhanced to Rs. 1600/ - per month. Additional service. benefits like Medical facility, leave, residential accommodation. T. A. and D. A. etc were extended to the petitioner by the Company and the consolidated salary was enhanced and fixed at Rs. 1800/. - per month. The services of the petitioner was further extended by another year by order dated 1 6 -2 -1988 inAnnexnre.5. The petitioner continued in service by different orders of short extension/renewals from time to time beyond 11 -2 -1980 and ultimately by order dated 31 -10 -1889. his services were extended till 31 -12 -1989 vide Anrrexwe -8. The Assistant Personnel Manager of opp. party No: 1, Company by telegram dated 8 -1 -1990 followed by letter of confirmation in Annexure - 9 intimated the petitioner that the contract period of employment has expired from 1 -1 -1990 and he may collect his dues.

(3.) THE opposite parties have filed a comprehensive counter -affidavit through the Assistant Personnel Manager, disputing the claim of the petitioner on several grounds while admitting the factum of appointment, continuance till 1 -1 -1990 and extension/renewal of contract of service in respect of persons so appointed alongwith him even his juniors. It is, inter alia, stated that the petitioner's appointment being as contract for one year, on terms and conditions as laid in the order of appointment, he ceases to be in employment since or the exoiry of period of contract i. e. from 1 -1 -1990, petitioner having not been communicated with the order to continue in service for further period. The opp. parties have alteged that the petitioner having absconded from duty with effect from 21 -12 -1989. till the expiry of the period of contract, his case could not be considered for further extension. ft is further stated that in terms of the order of appointment, the petitioner is governed under the NALCO service conditions, which stipulates that if an employee rermins absent thorisedly for 10 days or more, it Is deemed that he has abandoned the service and loses lien and his name is struck -off from the Rules of the opp. party. A copy of the said Rules/Standing Order has been fried as Annexure -A. The petitioner's name was struck off from the Rolls of opp. party, Inasmuch as the appointment order being clear to the extent that he was appointed for a fixed pericd, after expiry of the said -period he does not have any claim over the post nor there is application of principle of last come first go, in terms of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is claimed that in view of the provisions of law after expiry of the period of appointment if an employee is not given any extension or renewal of service then it will not amount to retrenchment nor the principle of first come last go will be applicable.