1 wp-2546-2451-2460-08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO. 2546 OF 2008 Arvind Solanki ..Petitioner Vs. University of Mumbai and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr.Avinash H.Fatangare Adv. for Petitioner Mr.P.M.Palshikar Adv. for Respondent No.1 .... WITH W.P.NO. 2451 OF 2008 Chiman Solanki ..Petitioner Vs. University of Mumbai and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr.Avinash H.Fatangare Adv. for Petitioner Mr.P.M.Palshikar Adv. for Respondent No.1 .... WITH W.P.NO. 2460 OF 2008 Gitesh Gaikwad ..Petitioner Vs. University of Mumbai and Ors. ..Respondents 2 wp-2546-2451-2460-08 .... Mr. Avinash H.Fatangare Adv. for Petitioner Mr. P.M.Palshikar Adv. for Respondent No.1 .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 7, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners-original complainants and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1-University. 2. These three petitions challenge the orders dated 2.8.2007 passed by the Mumbai University and College Tribunal whereby the Appeal Nos. 2 to 4 of 2007 preferred by the Petitioners came to be dismissed and the prayers of the Petitioners for reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service, came to be rejected. 3. The case of the Petitioners is that they were appointed on daily wages on temporary basis by orders 25.2.1999, 30.4.1990 and November, 1999 respectively. They continued to work till 2003. They came to be orally terminated with effect from 6th October, 2003. The said oral order of termination was challenged before the Tribunal by filing Appeal Nos. 56, 57 and 58 of 2003 respectively by the three Petitioners. In the said Appeals, the Petitioners sought relief of regularization of their 3 wp-2546-2451-2460-08 services with full back wages. By common order dated 7.9.2004, all the three Appeals came to be disposed of. The oral termination was set aside and the Respondent-University was directed to reinstate them in service as they were before and to pay them wages and other benefits if any, as per Rules. The prayer for regularization and permanency in service which were made by the Petitioners in the Appeals was not granted. The relief of back wages was also not granted by the Tribunal. In the said Appeals, it was held that the procedure under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, was not followed, hence, the termination of the Petitioners from service was bad and was set aside. 4. Thus, it is seen that as far as prayer for regularization in service as permanent employee is concerned, the same was rejected. Now the Petitioners cannot agitate this issue any more. Admittedly, the said order has not been challenged by any of the Petitioners and the said judgment has become final. After the orders dated 7.9.2004 were passed letters were received by the Petitioners directing them to report for duty. In these letters, it was clearly stated that they would be employed only for a temporary period of three months. Initially the Petitioners were issued appointment letters dated 3.1.2005 but as the period mentioned therein was only for a period of three months, the Petitioners did not join duty. In the meanwhile, Contempt Petition No. 60 of 2005 came to be preferred by the Petitioners before this Court. In 4 wp-2546-2451-2460-08 the said proceedings, the Petitioners expressed their willingness to join duty as directed in the letters issued by the Respondent-University without prejudice to their rights and contentions that they were permanent workmen and to take requisite action to agitate their grievance. This is recorded in the order dated 12.8.2005 in Contempt Petition No.60 of 2005. Pursuant to the statement made before this Court in Contempt Petition No. 60 of 2005, the Petitioners joined duty on 20.1.2006. However, thereafter their services came to be terminated by oral order of termination on 20.4.2006. This termination was challenged by the Petitioners by filing Appeal Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of 2007 before the Mumbai University and College Tribunal, at Mumbai. As stated earlier, these Appeals came to be dismissed. 5. As per fresh appointment orders, it is seen that all the three Petitioners were appointed for a temporary period by order dated 19.1.2006 for a fixed period of three months on daily wages of Rs.70/- per day. The Petitioners joined service of the Respondent on 20.1.2006. Since their appointments were for a period of three months only, they could only be continued upto 19.4.2006. Therefore, as per their appointment orders, their services were terminated with effect from 20.4.2006 by efflux of time of three months mentioned in the appointment orders. 6. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners 5 wp-2546-2451-2460-08 ought not to have been terminated as sufficient workload was available with the Respondent which is evident from the fact that three persons i.e. Bhima, Pravin and Vijay came to be appointed by the Respondent in the post held by the Petitioners. He submitted that Petitioners' appointment for a period of three months, was liable to be continued if sufficient workload was available and he submitted that the appointment orders of the Petitioners dated 19.1.2006 were on that understanding. However, the appointment order dated 19.1.2006 does not show any such condition or clause as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The appointment order does not specify that the said period of three months would be extended subsequently depending upon the workload. From the appointment orders, it is clear that petitioners ’ appointment was only for a period of three months and the services of the petitioners were liable to be terminated on the expiry of the period of three months by efflux of time. 7. As far as issue of regularization is concerned, that issue now cannot be gone into as the decision regarding regularization in relation to earlier appointments has now become final. As far as fresh appointments of the Petitioners are concerned, the appointment letters were issued in the month of January, 2006 and they were only for a period of three months. As such, it cannot be said that during this period, the Petitioners had worked for more than 240 days in the year 2006. So 6 wp-2546-2451-2460-08 the petitioners cannot claim regularization and continuity of service. Their oral termination w.e.f. 20.4.2006 also does not amount to retrenchment. The provisions of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act of the Industrial Disputes Act defines retrenchment. However, clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act excludes termination of a workman as a result of 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. Relevant portion of Section 2(oo) reads as under: “Sec.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)........... (b)........... (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 ”. The appointment of the petitioners being specifically for the period of three months, their services were terminated on expiry of the period of said three months and therefore, the petitioners ’ cases would not fall 7 wp-2546-2451-2460-08 under the definition of retrenchment. Consequently, the provisions of Section 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act, is also not attracted. 8. Thus, it is seen that fresh appointment letters issued to the Petitioners in the month of January, 2006 show that the appointment was for a period of only three months and as the Petitioners joined on 20.1.2006, the period of three months would expire on 19.4.2006. Looking to the appointment orders and facts of these cases, no interference is called for in the order dated 2.8.2007 whereby the prayer for reinstatement of the Petitioners and other prayers came to be rejected. 9. Writ Petitions are dismissed. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]