ASHOK KUMAR SINGH Vs. JHARKHAND STATE MINERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 10th July, 2007 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6517 of 2006, whereby the writ petition of the respondent-employer has been allowed and the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal ( No. 2), Dhanbad dated 17th April, 2006, has been set aside. The following was the dispute referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal:-

(2.) The appellant claimed that he was appointed as Accounts Clerk from 12.02.1990 and he worked upto 30.06.1993, and therefore, he worked for more than 240 days in a year continuously. Appellant's contention is that his services has been terminated absolutely illegally and without paying any retrenchment compensation. The Management submitted that the appellant though was given appointment on 07.02.1990 but his services were temporary as well as appointment was given for fix period of six months only. However, admittedly the extensions were given by virtue of which the appellant continued to serve the establishment for about three years. The appellant's contention therefore is not disputed that he was given appointment on 07.02.1990 and his services were taken in the Accounts Department of the employer and he worked upto 1993, however, with some minor break hear and there. The Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the appellant was given appointment and he was discharging his duties in Accounts Section and he completed more than 240 days and his services has not been terminated, not concerned in any of the exception provided under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and therefore, the Tribunal held that the termination of the services of the appellant was illegal and directed to reinstate the appellant-petitioner.

(3.) Aggrieved against the award dated 17.04.2006, the Management preferred writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6517 of 2006, wherein learned Single Judge after considering the judgment of Supreme Court held, that the appellant-workman's engagement was temporary for a fixed period. He was aware that his services may be discontinued after expiry of the period without any notice and payment of compensation, and therefore, the termination was justified in the second part of Clause (oo) (bb) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act.