UNION OF INDIA Vs. MAHAVEER PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal by the Union of India arises in the following circumstances: Mahaveer Prasad plaintiff was a temporary employee of the Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur (here after referred to as the Institute'). His services were terminated by the Director of the aforesaid institute after giving him one month's notice on April 10, 1964. Mahveer Prasad filed a suit in the court of Additional Munsif No. 1, Jodhpur challenging the termination of this services on the ground that the same was brought about by way of punishment without complying with the requirements of Article 311 of the Constitution. Another ground advanced by the plaintiff was that the termination of his services was in contravention of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The third ground advanced in the alternative was that the Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur was on 'industry' within the meaning of Clause (j) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act') and the services of the plaintiff were terminated without complying with the requirements of Section 25F of the Act, which constituted a condition precedent for retrenchment.

(2.) THE defence of the respondents was that the plaintiff Mahaveer Prasad was a temporary employee appointed under a particular Section and on account of the partial reduction in the scheme, some of the posts were abolished and the services of the plaintiff were terminated by way of retrenchment. According to the defendants, the Departmental Promotion Committee reviewed the work of the plaintiff and placed him along with other temporary employees in category 'C', which were not considered fit for permanent retention. Thus, according to the defendants, the termination of the services of the plaintiff was not brought about by way of punishment nor there was any cotravention of the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution, but the termination of the plaintiff was on account of retrenchment. However, it was submitted that the provisions of Section 25F of the Act were not applicable as the Institute was not an 'industry' within the meaning of Clause (j) of Section 2 of the Act.

(3.) AN appeal was preferred by the Union Of India and by the Director of the Institute. The learned Civil Judge, Jodhpur, in a well considered order, held that Article 311 was not attracted as the services of the plaintiff were not terminated by way of punishment. It was held that there was no violation of the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, the first appellant court held that the retrenchment of the plaintiff was illegal, on account of the non -compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. It was also held, relying upon the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in The State of Bombay and Ors. v. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and Ors. AIR 1960 Supreme Court that the Institute was an industry, within the meaning of Clause (j) of Section 2 of the Act. Thus, on the ground of noncompliance of provisions of Section 25F of the Act, the decree passed by the trial court was maintained.