LPA/205/2007 1/7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 205 of 2007 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6593 of 2002 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= CHANDRASINGH SURUBHA JADEJA - Appellant(s) Versus GUJARAT POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MUKESH H RATHOD for Appellant(s) : 1, MR DG CHAUHAN for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 23/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT LPA/205/2007 2/7 JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT) This Appeal preferred by the workman under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 21st December, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in above Special Civil Application No.6593 of 2002. The workman was engaged as a Field Assistant by the respondent – Gujarat Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”). After serving as Field Assistant for around two years, the service of the workman came to be discontinued on 1st January, 1991. Feeling aggrieved, the workman raised industrial dispute, which came to be referred to the Labour Court, Rajkot and registered as Reference (LCR) No.645 of 1991. According to the workman, on 23rd May, 1988 he was appointed as Field Assistant in coastal monitoring project. He had served continuously till his service came to be discontinued in violation of Sections 25(F), 25(F)(b) and 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The termination of service of the workman was also violative of Section LPA/205/2007 3/7 JUDGMENT 25(H) of that Act. The claim was contested by the respondent by its written reply. The Board denied the allegations made by the workman. According to the Board, the coastal monitoring project was financed by the Central Pollution Control Board. The workman was engaged as Field Assistant specifically for the said coastal monitoring project on express condition that his service would be terminated at any time without notice and that the workman would have no right to appointment on permanent post. It is the case of the Board that on completion of the period of his appointment upto 31st December, 1990 the service of the workman stood discontinued with effect from 1st January, 1991. The discontinuance of the service of the workman was, therefore, not retrenchment within the meaning of the Act. The provisions contained in Sections 25(F), 25(G) and 25(H), etc., were, therefore, not attracted. The Labour Court by its judgment and award dated 30th March, 2002 held that the discontinuance of the LPA/205/2007 4/7 JUDGMENT service of the workman was in contravention of Sections 25(F), 25(G) and 25(H) of the Act. The Labour Court set aside the action of the Board in discontinuing the service of the workman and issued direction to the Board to reinstate the workman with 50% of the backwages. Feeling aggrieved, the Board preferred above Special Civil Application No.6593 of 2002 before this Court. The learned Single Judge was pleased to hold that it was not a case of retrenchment of the workman from service. The workman was, therefore, not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. Accordingly, the award passed by the Labour Court has been set aside. Therefore, the present Appeal. Mr. M.H.Rathod has taken us through the pleadings and evidence on record. He has particularly relied upon the first appointment order. He has submitted that the workman was appointed as Field Assistant on daily wages of Rs.20/-. There was no reference to any particular project. Thus, it is not true that the workman was appointed for a particular project. He has, further, submitted that subsequent LPA/205/2007 5/7 JUDGMENT orders reflected pattern of giving artificial break. Thus, for all practical purposes the workman had continuously served since 23rd May, 1988 to 31st December, 1990. The workman was, therefore, entitled to notice pay, retrenchment compensation, etc. Admittedly the said procedure was not followed. The Labour Court had rightly ordered reinstatement of the workman in service and payment of part of the backwages. Mr. D.G.Chauhan has contested the Appeal. On perusal of the evidence on record, it appears that the workman was first appointed as Field Assistant on daily wages. However, by subsequent orders made from time to time, the workman was appointed as Field Assistant in the scale of Rs.950 – 1500 for a specific period mentioned in the order on conditions, inter alia, that the said appointment was temporary on coastal monitoring project; the service of the workman could be discontinued at any time without notice and that the workman had no right to permanent employment in the Board. Last of such LPA/205/2007 6/7 JUDGMENT orders was of 9th October, 1990 appointing the workman for the period from 5th October, 1990 to 31st December, 1990 on identical condition except that the wages were increased to Rs.35/- per day. Further, by communication dated 10th February, 1992 sent by the Central Pollution Control Board, the Board was informed that the project of coastal water quality monitoring programme was discontinued from the next financial year. That would be the year 1992-93. The oral evidence led on behalf of the Board also suggests that persons appointed under coastal water quality monitoring programme were discontinued on expiry of the period of the project by the Central Pollution Control Board. Thus, it is apparent that the workman was appointed for a specific purpose under the specific project for a specific period. On completion of the said specified period his service stood terminated. The discontinuance of the service of the workman, therefore, cannot be said to be retrenchment within the meaning of Section 25(0) of the Act nor the workman was entitled to ensuing benefit of LPA/205/2007 7/7 JUDGMENT retrenchment compensation, etc. In above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition and set aside the award of the Labour Court. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. (Ms. R.M.Doshit, J.) (K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc