GAJ RAJ Vs. RAJASTHAN AGRICULTURAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by this writ petition, has prayed that the order dated May 24, 1990, passed by the Registrar, Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, terminating the sevices of the petitioner, may be quashed and the respondent University may be directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The petitioner, vide order dated June 7/8,1989, was appointed on casual basis in the scheme of Supervision and Monitering of Creches, Department of Child Development, College of Human Science, Idai/ ur at Rs. 481.55 p. (fixed) per month on contractual basis for a period of three months from the date of joining the duty. The services of the petitioner were extended by the Vice Chancellor for a further period of three months on the same basis. The petitioner was, however, asked to work in the Administrative Office, Camp Udaipur, in place of one Shri Mangi Lal Meena. Later on, by the order dated October 18/19, 1989, the petitioner was allowed to draw the fixed salary of Rs.880/- per month with effect from July 1,1989, on usual terms and conditions. The petitioner was asked to qualify the Job Test and was allowed to appear in the test, but he could not qualify the Job Test and, therefore, his services were terminated vide order dated May 23/24, 1990. It is against this order, terminating the services of the petitioner that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was a 'workman' and the respondent is an 'industry' and, therefore, the termination of the services of the petitioner comes within the purview of the definition of the word 'retrenchment' and the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated without following the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and as the services of the petitioner have been terminated in contravention of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, therefore, the order, passed by the respondents, is wholky illegal and deserves to be quashed and set-aside. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance over: Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala, 1980 2 LLJ 72 SC , Shailendra Nath Shukla and Ors. v. Vice Chancellor, Allahabad University and Ors.,1987 LabIC 1607 and Satyendra Singh Rathore v. Rajasthan Rajya Pathiya Pustak Mandal, Jaipur and Anr., 1988 2 WLN(Raj) 690. The learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has supported the order, passed by the Vice Chancellor, terminating the services of the petitioner. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the non-petitioner that the petitioner failed to qualify the Job Test and, therefore, the term, for which he was appointed, was not extended and the services of the petitioner were terminated. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the services of the petitioner were terminated as a result of non-renewal of the contract after the expiry of the same. The services of the petitioner, being contractual and for a fixed period, automatically came to an end after the expiry of the term for which the petitioner was appointed. In view of Sub-clause (bb) of Clause (oo) of Section 2, terminating the services of the petitioner because of the non-renwal of the contract on expiry of the term stipulated in the agreement, cannot be deemed to be retrenchment and as such the petitioner is not entitled to claim any protection under the Act and Section 25F of the Act is not available to the petitioner. In support of its case, the learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance over: Indian Air Lines v. Subastian,1991 ILR 211.