GANGANAGAR SUGAR MILLS Vs. MANAGEMENT OF THE GANGANAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the award of the Labour Court, Rajasthan Jaipur, dated 16 -9 -1970 on the following disputes referred to by the Government for adjudication (Ex. 8): (1) Whether the termination of services of Shri Chhabildas Goyal on 1 -2 -65 (represented by Sri Ganganagar Sugar Mills Employees Union) by the management of the Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd., Sriganganagar is justified? If not, to what relief is he entitled? (2) Whether Shri Chhabildas Goyal is entitled to get his increment of Rs. 6/ - in the grade of 100 -5 -150 -10 -200 as Cane Inspector from 1 -7 -58 to 31 -10 -60? If so, is he entitled to claim bonus for these years, according to the revised pay? (3) Whether Shri Chabildas Goyal is entitled to be fixed on Rs. 167/ -per month with effect from 1 -11 -60, i.e. on introduction of the Wage Board recommendations? (4) Whether the retrenchment of Shri Chhabildas Goyal on 3 -4 -58 was justified? If not, to what relief, is he entitled?

(2.) THE petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Cane Clerk on 24 -11 -1956 and after a month he was promoted as Cane Inspector. Later on he was confirmed by the Director Incharge Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. on 1 -7 -1957. The petitioner No. 2's services were terminated on 1 -3 -1965 without giving him any reasonable opportunity for defending himself. The petitioner No. 2 has sought that the termination order be set aside and he may be reinstated with full back wages. The petitioner No. 2 has further challenged that his retrenchment on 3 -4 -58 was unjustified. Disputes No. 2 and 3 have not been pressed in this writ petition.

(3.) THE writ petition has been resisted by the Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. and a reply to the writ petition has been filed. Its case is that the petitioner No. 2 was employed only as a Cane clerk for the season and he was confirmed as Cane Inspector for the seasonal work. The undertaking has two types of persons, one class is on the regular roll of the undertaking and they are permanent employees, and, the other type is that they are permanent seasonal employees, who work in every season and if necessary their services can be retained in off season also or for a part thereof, The petitioner No. 2 belonged to the later class and he was confirmed in the seasonal category, that is, he was a permanent employee from season to season. By confirmation the petitioner No. 2 did not become employee on a regular roll, but the word 'confirmed' is used in the sense as indicated above. The General Manager dispensed with the services of the petitioner No. 2 as his work was not satisfactory. The petitioner No. 2 was taken on regular roll by Shri V.S. Sud, the then General Manager of the undertaking in pursuance of the note of Shri M.U. Menon, who was Director Incharge of the undertaking. Shri Rajkumar Goyal son of petitioner No. 2, was working as P.A. to Shri M.U. Menon. The note of Shri V.S. Sud posting the petitioner No. 2 against the permanent post also appears on the same note Annx. 2, which is dated 11 -4 -1957. It is in these circumstances the petitioner No. 2 was allowed to work against the only permanent post of the Cane Inspector despite the fact that there were other Cane Inspectors, who were senior to him and one of them was entitled to work on the only one post of Cane Inspector. Thereafter on the representation of Shri Dharampal, who was the senior most Cane Inspector and who was entitled to be retained on the permanent post, the matter was reconsidered and to rectify the wrong already done to other persons, it was thought necessary to dispense with the sesvices of the petitioner No. 2 thereafter only for off season. The representation of the petitioner No. 2, after consideration, was rejected. The order dispensing with the services of the petitioner No. 2 is dated 2 -4 -1958. The non -petitioner No. 1 further stated that the usual practice in the undertaking is that during the off season, that is, on the close of the crushing season, off -seasonal employees are paid off and they are recalled when the next crushing season starts. After the crushing season of 1957 -58 the petitioner No. 2 was paid off and was recalled when the next season 1958 -59 started vide Annexure C, and the petitioner No. 2 joined his duties again on 7 -12 -1958. This case of the petitioner No. 2 was denied that Dharmpal was working on work -charged establishment and it was stated that he was definitely senior to the petitioner, as he was already in the employment of the out -going management when the answering non -petitioner took over the undertaking first on lease on 11 -12 -1953 and thereafter purchased the managing agency interest in the undertaking. The grounds on which the Award of disputes No. 1 and 4 has been challenged, were denied, and, it was stated that Section 25F of the Act has no application to the petitioner's case as the petitioner was not holding any permanent post and as such had no right to be given any opportunity of hearing and the petitioner was not retrenched in 1958. He was simply paid off for the off season and was recalled in the next crushing season.