RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset it is required to be noted that having not agreed with the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Tiwary and Others. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors reported in, (2008) 2 PLJR 265 vide order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in present Letters Patent Appeal No. 676 of 2010 and L.P.A. No. 332 of 2010 dated 11.05.2010 both these appeals are referred to the Full Bench. 1.1. At the outset it is required to be noted that in the case of Sanjay Kumar Tiwary and Others. (supra) the Division Bench of this Court has observed and held that in a case of termination of a casual worker on daily wage, in view of Section 2(oo) of Clause (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the I.D. Act"), the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act shall not be attracted and an employer terminating the employment of such worker is not required to serve notice, pay compensation etc. In the case of Sanjay Kumar Tiwary and Others. (supra) after referring the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Others reported in, (2006) 4 SCC 1, State of M.P. and Others Vs. Lalit Kumar Verma reported in, (2007) 1 SCC 575 and another decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Shankariah Vs. K.S.R.T.C. reported in, (1986) 1 LLJ 195 and thereafter relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Allahabad Bank Vs. Prem Singh reported in, (1996) 10 SCC 597 the Division Bench has observed and held as above.

(2.) Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective employer have supported the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Tiwary and Others. (supra). It is submitted that in the case of a casual worker/daily-wager every day could be a fresh appointment and the contract ends on every day and, therefore, the provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act shall be applicable and, therefore, the termination of such casual labourer/daily-wager cannot be termed as "retrenchment" and, therefore, the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act shall not be applicable.