1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1152 of 2005(M/S) Smt. Manjeet Arora (Kataria) ………… Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court Lucknow. ………… Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Gopal Narain, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri LP.Nathani, the learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.2. The petitioner has assailed the validity and legality of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal rejecting the claim of the petitioner with regard to the termination of her services. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioner was appointed as a Research Assistant in Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology in a sponsored research Project known as “Operationalisation of Geographical Information System for Micro level planning in Pauri Garhwal“ on a temporary basis and tenable maximum up to the tenure of the project i.e., upto May, 14, 1996. The terms and conditions of the appointment letter dated 17.1.1996 is detailed hereunder: “No.103/1/95DST/Estt(4)/95 dated:17.1.1996 MEMORANDUM With reference to her application dated 15.10.1995 and on the recommendation of the selection committee meeting held on 11.1.1996 the Director Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology has been pleased to offer 2 Miss Manjeet Kaur the post of Research Assistant on a basic of Rs. 1290/- pm in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-30- 1560 EB-40-2040 plus other allowances as per rules in the Govt. of India Department of Science and Technology sponsored Research Project entitled Operationalisation of Geographical Information System for Micro Level Planning in Pauri Garhwal District U.P. under the supervision of Dr. Trilochan Singh Scientist EI WIHG. 2.The appointment is purely on temporary basis and tenable maximum up to the tenure of the project which is at present up to May 1996. 3. She will be subjected to administrative control of the Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology Dehradun (for TA/DA leave etc) but she shall not be treated as the employee of the institute. By virtue of this assignment she will not be entitled to claim any lien for appointment in any other posts in the institute No administrative or other liability will be attached to the Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology or the Dept. of Science and Technology Govt. of India at the end of the project. 4. The appointment can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason or any prior notice of payment of any salary in lieu of prior notice. 5. She will be governed by the terms and condition of the project from time to time. 6. She will produce a medical certificate of fitness from a medical officer not below the rank of civil surgeon of a Govt. hospital. 7. If any declaration given or information furnished by the candidate proves to be false of if the candidate if found to have willfully suppressed any material information she will be liable to removal from service and such other action as institute may deem necessary. 8. She can be posted at Pauri Garhwal as and when necessary. 3 9. If willing to accept the above terms and conditions of appointment, she may report for duty on or before 30.1.96. Sd/- GR K Nair Registrar” From the aforesaid, the appointment was purely on a temporary basis and up to the tenure of the project, which was tentatively up to May, 1996. By an order dated 3rd June, 1996, the appointment of the petitioner was extended up to 14.5. 1997. The said order is quoted hereunder; No. 103/5/95/DST/140 Dt. 3.6.1996 ORDER Consequent upon the extension of the DST sponsored research project entitled operationalisation of the Geographical Informations system for Micro Level Planning Pauri Garhwal U.P. vice DST letter no. ES/11/209/95 dated 16th May, 1996 the tenure of temporary appointment of Miss Manjeet Kaur Research Assistant is extended upto 14.5.97 on the terms and conditions as mentioned in the memorandum no. 103/1/95/DST/Estt (4)/95 dated 17.1.96. Sd/- Registrar The petitioner’s services automatically came to an end upon the expiry of the period and the respondent did not extend her services after 14th May, 1997. The matter ended at that stage. It is alleged that on 4th January, 2001, the respondents issued an order regularizing the services of three employees, who were involved in the project and, based on this order, the petitioner raised an objection alleging discrimination, which ultimately led to the adjudication of the following dispute. The terms of the reference order is; 4 whether the employers were justified in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 14.5.1997 ? if not, what relief the workman is entitled to? Before the Tribunal, the petitioner contended that she was appointed as a Research Assistant and her services was extended till 14.5. 1997 and that beyond this period though no formal orders was given but she continued to work even though she was not allowed to sign the attendance register. The petitioner alleged that certain employees, who were working in the project has been absorbed and therefore, the respondents have adopted a policy of discrimination. On the other hand, the employers contended that the petitioner was appointed for the fixed term on a contract basis, but subsequently, the tenure of the appointment was extended till 14.5. 1997 and thereafter, the contract of engagement of the petitioner was not extended. The employers took a stand that since a fixed term appointment was made, the petitioner was not entitled for any retrenchment compensation by virtue of the provision contained under Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondents further submitted that insofar as the absorption of four employees by order dated 4.1.2001 was concerned, the respondents submitted that these scientists were working for more than 13 years and were absorbed, whereas, the petitioner was only working as a Research Assistant for a fixed terms and was appointed on the first time on 17.1.1996. The Tribunal, after considering the material on record, found that the petitioner was given a fixed term appointment and that the period of appointment came to an end upon the expiry of period on 14th May, 1997 and that the non- renewal of the contract beyond 14th May, 1997, did not amount to any violation of the provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act in view of the provision of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which provides for exclusion of the provisions of retrenchment compensation. The Tribunal held that 5 in view of the fixed term appointment, the petitioner was not entitled for any retrenchment compensation and that her services came to an end automatically after the expiry of the period of contract. The Tribunal further found that the persons, who had been absorbed were scientists, who had put in long time of service i.e. 13 years of service, whereas, the petitioner had worked for only 1 ½ years, and that too, on a contractual basis. The Tribunal further found that the petitioner had failed to specify as to which other persons working in the project has been absorbed in the institute other than the scientists. In the light of the aforesaid, the Tribunal after considering the matter declined to grant any relief to the workman and held that no termination order was passed by the employers since the contract of the petitioner came to an end automatically on 14th May, 1997. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said award, has filed the present writ petition before this court. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that 33 workers, who were similarly situated with the petitioner were working in the project and that the respondents made a recommendation to the Ministry by a letter dated 28th August, 1997 for absorption of all the 33 contract workers. It was also contended that out of these 33 workers, 32 of them have been absorbed, whereas, the petitioner has been left out and discriminated and that her services were arbitrarily terminated. The court has closely scrutinized the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and finds that the submission is not based on any evidence, which has been brought on record. The said submission has neither been alleged in the writ petition, nor has been placed by way of any evidence before the Tribunal. Consequently, the contention that all the workers, who were working in the project had been absorbed and that the petitioner had been discriminated cannot be accepted by the court. Insofar as the absorption of four persons is concerned, the court is of the opinion that no discrimination had been adopted and that the absorption of four scientists cannot be 6 correlated with the work being done by the petitioner. Further, the court finds that the said scientists who were absorbed had been working more than 15 years. Their terms and conditions of appointment are not before the court nor were placed by the petitioner before the tribunal to prove that they were also similarly situated, working on a fixed term. On the other hand, there is ample evidence to indicate that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1996 initially for a limited period upto 14th May, 1996, but subsequently her tenure was extended upto 14th May 1997. Upon the expiry of the said period, the contract came to an end automatically. Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act provides as under; 2[“(oo)“retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include- (a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or (b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or (bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or] (c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health;] The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the case of K. Alex Vs, Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation reported in (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 456, wherein the court was considering the controversy with regard to the action of the corporation in not implementing 7 its redeployment policy under Section 25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act. In my opinion, the said decision has no application whatsoever with present facts and circumstances of the case. In the light of the aforesaid, this court is of the opinion that the findings given by the Tribunal holding that the engagement of the petitioner came to an end by an efflux of time as per the appointment letter does not suffer from any error of law. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own cost. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated: 9.4.2010 Nishant