[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Devisahay S/O Nonda Ram Saini vs Principal Government Polotechnic … on 21 April, 2025
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2025:RJ-JP:16694]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21859/2019
Principal, Government Polytechnic College, Alwar (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
Devi Sahai Saini S/o Shri Nonda Ram Saini, Resident Of Village
Gajuki, Post Bhajeet, Tehsil And District Alwar (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20065/2019
Devisahay S/o Nonda Ram Saini, R/o Village Gajuki Post Bhajeet
Teh. And Distt. Alwar (Raj.)
—-Petitioner
Versus
Principal Government Polotechnic Collage, Alwar (Raj.)
—-Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG assisted by
Mr. Priyam Agarwal
Mr. Harsh Parashar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Sharma
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
21/04/2025
Since, both these writ petitions are directed against the
award dated 13.08.2019 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal
and Labour Court, Alwar (for brevity “the learned Labour Court”)
in LCR No.30/2009 (CIS No. LCR 811/2014): Devisahay Saini
versus Principal, Government Polytechnic College, Alwar, they
have been heard together and are being decided vide this
common order.
(Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 10:26:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16694] (2 of 6) [CW-21859/2019]
For ready reference and convenience, the facts are being
referred from the file of SB Civil Writ Petition No.21859/2019.
The respondent/applicant (for short “the applicant”) filed a
statement of claim against the petitioner/non-applicant (for short
“the non-applicant”) stating therein that he was appointed as
Driver with the non-applicant on 11.11.1998, vide order dated
10.08.2007, his services were terminated and before that, he was
being paid consolidated wages @ Rs.1,500/- per month. It was
averred that he has rendered services for more than 240 days in
every calendar year before the date of termination of his services
but, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity
“the Act of 1947”) were violated while doing so. It was, therefore,
prayed that termination of his services be declared as illegal and
invalid and a direction be issued for his reinstatement in service
with all consequential benefits.
The non-applicant, in its reply, submitted that services of the
applicant were engaged as Driver on contract basis under the
“Community Polytechnic Scheme” (for brevity “the Scheme”)
floated by the Human Resources Department, Government of
India (for short “the HRD”) which was closed by the HRD vide
order dated 30.07.2007 whereupon, services of all the persons
including the applicant working on contract/honorarium basis
under the Scheme were terminated vide order dated 10.08.2007.
It was further submitted that no post of Driver was sanctioned in
the office of non-applicant. It was averred that since, services of
the applicant came to an end with the closure of the Scheme, the
provisions of the Act of 1947 had no applicability. It was,
therefore, prayed that the claim petition be dismissed.
(Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 10:26:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16694] (3 of 6) [CW-21859/2019]
After recording evidence of the respective parties, the
learned Labour Court partly allowed the claim petition vide its
award dated 13.08.2019 whereby, while declaring the order of
termination to be in violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947,
the applicant was held entitled for a lump sum compensation of
Rs.3,00,000/-.
Assailing the order, learned counsel for the non-applicant
submitted that the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate that
since, the services of the applicant were hired on contractual basis
under a central scheme and with the closure of the Scheme, his
services were terminated alongwith the similarly situated persons,
the provisions of the Act of 1947 had no applicability. Relying upon
the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases
of State of H.P. versus Aswani Kumar & Ors.: (1996) 1
Supreme Court Cases 773 and MD, U.P. Land Development
Corporation & Anr. versus Amar Singh & Ors.: (2003) 5
Supreme Court Cases 388, he would submit that an employee
appointed under a project/scheme has no right to continue once
the project/scheme comes to an end. He further submits that the
learned Labour Court has unnecessarily been swayed by the fact
in its reply to the statement of claim, the non-applicant has stated
that the applicant had left the services on his own which, at worst,
could have been reckoned as a bonafide clerical error in view of
the admitted facts as stated hereinabove. He, therefore, prays
that the writ petition filed by it be allowed, the award impugned
dated 13.08.2019 be quashed and set aside and the claim petition
filed by the applicant be dismissed.
(Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 10:26:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16694] (4 of 6) [CW-21859/2019]
Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant, supporting the
findings recorded by the learned Labour Court, submitted that
despite holding that the order of termination of his services was
hit by the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, it erred in
directing payment of the lump sum compensation instead of his
reinstatement in service. He, in support of submissions, relies
upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja verus Kutchh District
Panchayat: Civil Appeal No.6890/2022 (@ Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No.8393/2022). He, therefore, prays that the
writ petition filed by him be allowed, the award impugned dated
13.08.2019 be quashed and set aside to the extent it directs
payment of the lump sum compensation instead of reinstatement
and the non-applicant be directed to reinstate him back in service
with all consequential benefits.
Heard. Considered.
Although, in its reply to the claim petition, the non-applicant
has averred that the applicant had left the services on his own
volition but, from the other contents of the reply as well as the
oral as also the documentary evidence available on record, the
undisputed position which emerges is that the applicant was
appointed under the “Community Polytechnic Scheme” floated by
the Human Resources Development, Government of India as
Driver on contract basis and vide its letter dated 30.07.2007
(Exhibit MO-4), the Scheme was closed w.e.f. 30.07.2007. The
Principals of all the Community Polytechnic were specifically
directed under the aforesaid letter to wind up all the ongoing
activities under the Scheme with the stipulation that no fresh
(Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 10:26:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16694] (5 of 6) [CW-21859/2019]
expenditure should be incurred after 31.07.2007 as the Ministry
would not be obliged to release grant under any of the
components of the Scheme thereafter. The order dated
10.08.2007 (Exhibit MO-5) reflects that alongwith services of the
applicant, services of nine other contractual/honorarium based
staff were terminated on account of closure of the Scheme w.e.f.
30.07.2007. Indisputably, the petitioner was not appointed under
any written order nor, there was any agreement signed between
the parties.
In view of the aforesaid evidence available on record, in the
considered opinion of this Court, the learned Labour Court erred in
answering the reference in favour of the applicant only on the
premise that he was not made aware of the fact that he was
appointed under the Scheme or that in its reply, the non-applicant
has averred that he had left the services on his own which, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, was of no consequence.
Their Lordships have held in the case of State of H.P.
(supra) that when the project is completed and closed due to non-
availability of funds, the employees have to go under the closed
project and the high Court erred in issuing directions to regularize
service of such employees. It was further held that no direction
could have been given to create post to a non-existent
establishment.
Similarly, in the case of MD, U.P. Land Development
Corporation & Anr. (supra), it was held that when the project
comes to a close, the employees working under the project will
not get any vested right and their services also come to an end.
(Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 10:26:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16694] (6 of 6) [CW-21859/2019]
In the backdrop of the aforesaid precendential law as also
the undisputed facts and circumstances of the case as discussed
hereinabove, this Court has no hesitation in recording a finding
that the applicant had no right to continue in service once the
Scheme under which he was employed came to a closure.
The submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant
based on the judgment in the case of Jeetubha Khansangji
Jadeja (supra) does not require consideration in view of the
aforesaid finding wherein, he has been held not entitled to
continue in service after closure of the project.
Resultantly, the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21859/2019 filed
by the non-applicant is allowed and the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
20065/2019 filed by the applicant stands dismissed. The award
impugned dated 13.08.2019 is quashed and set aside.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/18-19
(Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 10:26:11 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link