SONEPAT COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD.versusRAKESH KUMAR

A               SONEPAT COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD.
                                          v.
                                 RAKESH KUMAR

                               DECEMBER 16,2005

B              [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.]


          Labour Laws:

          Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 25F-Termination of employee
C   engaged on daily wage basis as Computer He/per-Tribunal holding that
    employee worked continuously for more than 240 days in a year, thus
    termination violative of section 25F, thus to be reinstatement as computer
    programmer-Justification of-Held: Termination was retrenchment since no
    pleading or proof that appointment was contractual for a specific period and
D   termination was due to non renewal-Employee worked for more than 240
    days during a year prior to termination, as such violation of section 25F-
    Hence, order of reinstatement justified but only as a computer helper since he
    was appointed in a non-manual clerical post in the computer department.

          According to the appellant-employer, he employed the _respondent
E   on daily wages in the computer section between the period 1.7.1998 and
    31.8.1999 after obtaining sanction and thereafter, terminated his services.
     Respondent served demand notice alleging the termination to be illegal
    for violation of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Before
    the Labour Court, appellant contended that the respondent was engaged
F   on daily wage basis; and as he did not complete 240 days of service, there
    was no violation Section 25F of the Act. Labour Court held that since the
    respondent had worked for more than 240 days in a year continuously
    prior to his termination, his termination was violative of section 25, and
    hence was entitled to reinstatement to the post of computer programmer.
    Appellant then challenged the order on the ground that the termination
G   did not amount to retrenchment since it was due to non-renew.al of contract
    of employment, and thus, there was no violation of Section 25F; and also
    the direction for reinstatement as computer programmer was not justified.
    High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal.


H                                       950
                SONEPAT COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. v. RAKESH KUMAR         951
           Dismissing the appeal, the Court                                          A
".,         HELD: 1.1. The specific case of the appellant before the Labour
      Court and in the writ petition was that there was no sanctioned post of
      Computer Programmer or Computer Operator, and the respondent was
      appointed as a Computer Helper on daily wage basis, pending decision
      on creation of the post and prescription of qualification thereof. It is not   B
      borne out either by the pleadings of the appellant - employer before the
      Labour Court and the High Court or the evidence that the appointment
      of the respondent was contractual for a specific period, from 1.7.1998 to
      31.8.1999; and that the termination was on account of non-renewal of such
      contract. It was pleaded nor proved that respondent was informed at the        C
      time of appointment that appointment was contractual upto 31.8.1999. The
      appellant cannot raise such a contention for the first time before this
      Court. The pleadings and evidence clearly show that the termination is
      'retrenchment.' 1953-E-H; 954-AJ

            1.2. The Time keeper who had produced the Attendance Register for        D
      the period 1.7.1998 to 31.8.1999 specifically admitted that as per the
      Attendance Register, the respondent had worked continuously between the
      said period and that had worked for more than 240 days in a period of
      one year prior to respondent's termination. Thus, there was a clear
      violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Act, 1947 and the direction for     E
      reinstatement of employee is correct and order of Labour Court calls for
      no interference. [954-B, CJ

            1.3. The records clearly show that the respondent was appointed in
      a non-manual clerical post in the computer department, his reinstatement
      shall be as Helper involving clerical work (not necessarily in the computer    F
      section), and not as 'Computer Programmer'. He should also not be
      reinstatement as a manual labourer. Thus, the Labour Court was not
      justified in directing reinstatment of the respondent as a Computer.
      Programmer. 1955-A, B)

           CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4460 of 2005.           G
           From the Judgment and Order dated 11.9.2003 of the Punjab and
      Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 14355 of 2003.

           Manoj Swarup and Neeraj K. Sharma for the Appellant.
                                                                                     H
    952                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A        Jasbir Singh Malik, D.K. Sharma, Arun Kumar Singh and Ms. Kamakshi
    S. Mehlwal for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          R. V. RA VE END RAN, J. This appeal is by an employer is against the
B order of dismissal dated 11.9.2003 passed by the High Court of Punjab &
    Haryana in C.W.P. No.14355 of 2003 wherein it had challenged the award
    dated 2.4.2003 in Ref. No. 417/2000 made by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-
    Labour Court, Panipat.

          The appellant employed the respondent on daily wages in its computer
C   section on 1.7.1998. According to the appellant, such appointment was made
    after obtaining sanction from the appropriate authority for employing the
    Respondent between the period I. 7.1998 and 31.8.1999. His services were
    terminated on 31.8.1999.

           Feeling aggrieved by the termination, the Respondent served a demand
D   notice dated 4.1.2000 for reinstatement with back wages and continuity of
    service, allegi~g that he was illegally terminated on 29.9.1999 without any
    prior notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation, in violation of
    Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). The
    State Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section
E   10(1 )(c) of the Act. In its reply filed before the Labour Court, the appellant
    contended that the respondent was engaged on daily wage basis on 1.5.1998,
    that as he actually worked only from 1.7.1998 he was paid salary from that
    date, and that he did not complete 240 days of service in a year and, therefore,
    there was no need to comply with the requirements of Section 25F of the Act.

F         By award dated 2.4.2003, the Labour Court allowed the claim and held
    that the respondent is entitled to reinstatement to the post of Computer
    Programmer with continuity of service and full back-wages from 4.1.2000.
    The Labour Court, after considering the evidence, in particular, the.attendance
    register for the period 1.7.1998 to 31.8.1999 produced by the appellant and
G   the admission by appellant's witness, held th~t the respondent had worked
    continuously for more than 240 days in the period of 12 months prior to his
    termination. Consequently, it held that the termination of service ofrespondent
    without notice, notice-pay and retrenchment compensation was violative of
    Section 25-F of the Act.

H         The appellant challenged the said order by filing C.W.P. No.14355 of
 SONEPAT COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. v. RAKESH KUMAR [RAVEENDRAN, J.J953

2003 which was dismissed by the High Court at the stage of admission itself       A
without notice to the respondent. The said order is challenged in this appeal.
Two contentions are urged by the appellant :

       (i)    The termination of the service of the respondent was on account
              of non-renewal of contract of employment. Having regard to the
              definition of the term retrenchment in section 2(oo)(bb) of the     B
              Act, which excluded contracts of employment for specific periods,
              the termination did not amount to retrenchment and therefore,
              there was no obligation to comply with the requirements of
             ·Section 25-F of the Act;
       (ii) Even if the order of reinstatement is to be upheld, there is no       C
            justification for directing reinstatement as Computer Programmer,
            as he was appointed only as a Helper on daily wage basis.

     · Re : Contention (i) :

       The contention of the appellant that the respondent was appointed for D
 a specific period, namely, l.7.1998 to 31.8.1999 and the termination of his
 service is on account of non-renewal of contract of employment is not borne
 out either by the pleadings or the evidence. The appellant did not produce
any letter of appointment or other documents showing that the respondent
 was appointed for the period from I. 7.1998 to 3 l.8.1999 or the termination
was on account of non-renewal of such term appointment. On the other hand, E
the specific case of the appellant before the Labour Court and in the writ
petition was that there was no sanctioned post of Computer Programmer ot
Computer Operator and that as there was no such sanctioned post, the
respondent was appointed as a Computer Helper on daily wage basis, pending
decision on creation of the post and prescription of qualification thereof. The F
appellant specifically pleaded in the writ petition that Respondent was informed
that "the work was of a temporary nature and his services would not be
required after the staff of the Mill gained proficiency in computerization". It
was further alleged that as some staff of the appellant, learnt to operate the
computer, the respondent's services were terminated on 3 l.8.1999 and he
had not served for 240 days. The appellant never contended before the Labour G
Court or the High Court that the appointment was contractual for a specific
term from l. 7 .1998 to 31.8.1999 and that the termination was on account of
non renewal of such contract. Nor was it pleaded or proved that Respondent
was informed at the time of appointment that appointment was contractual up ,
to 31.8.1999. The appellant can not raise such a contention for the first time H
    954                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A before us. The pleadings and evidence clearly show that the termination is
    'retrenchment'. The first contention is, therefore, rejected.

          From the evidence led before the Labour Court, the finding recorded
    by the Labour Court that the respondent was employed on daily wage basis
    and had worked for more than 240 days during the period of 12 months
B   before the date oftennination, did not call for interference. The appellant had
    examined one Randhir Singh, Time Keeper as MW-2 who had produced the
    Attendance Register for the period 1. 7. l 998 to 31.8.1999 and specifically
    admitted that as per the Attendance Register, the respondent· had worked
    continuously between the said period and further admitted that the respondent
C   had worked for more than 240 days in a period of one year prior to
    respondent's tennination. In view of it, there was a clear violation of Section
    25-F and we find no error in the direction for reinstatement.

    Re: Contention (ii)

D        This leads us to the second question as to whether the Labour Court
    was justified in directing that the Respondent should be reinstated as a
    Computer Programmer.

           In the demand notice sent by the respondent under Section 2A of the
    Act, the respondent merely stated that he was engaged to work in the Computer
E   Section on computers. He did not say that he was appointed as a Computer
    Programmer. The appellant, on the other hand, specifically contended in the
    reply that the respondent was appointed as a Helper in the Computer
    Department and not as a Computer Programmer. The Appellant has also
    produced the Casual Labour Payment Sheet for some of the months during
    the period when the respondent was employed ori daily wage basis. The said
F   Casual Labour Payment Sheet for July, 1998 shows that he was engaged as
    a Computer Helper. The Casual Labour Muster Roll and Casual Labour
    Payment Sheet show that he was appointed a Computer Helper. The respondent
    has also produced some documents before us (correspondence) referring to
    him as Computer Programmer. But those are all communications emanating
G   from the respondent describing himself as 'Computer Programmer'. It is not
    disputed that the respondent was a matriculate with a Diploma in Computer
    Science lrt the time of appointment. It is also evident that the respondent's
    services were being utilized by the appellant for operating the computer
    temporarily, till it could secure the services of a qualified person. The
    Respondent did not produce any document to show that he was appointed as
H   a 'Programmer'. In the demand notice under section 2A, he merely stated
 SONEPAT COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. v. RAKESH KUMAR [RAVEENDRAN, J.)955

that he was engaged to work in the computer department and prayed that he          A
may be reinstated into service. The Labour Court was not justified in directing
that the respondent should be reinstated as a Computer Programmer, as he
was appointed as a Helper in the Computer Department. The reinstatement
can, therefore, be only as a helper and not as 'Computer Programmer'. As the
records clearly show that he was appointed in a non-manual clerical post in        B
the computer department, his reinstatement shall be as Helper involving clerical
work (not necessarily in the computer section), but not as a manual labourer.

      Subject to the said clarification, we uphold the orders of the Tribunal
and that of the High Court and dismiss this appeal.

NJ.                                                         Appeal dismissed.      C