Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra and its officers (petitioners) challenged the judgments of the Labour Court and Industrial Court which had held that the termination of the respondent, Dnyanoba Bhimrao Yadav, was illegal and amounted to unfair labour practice. The respondent was appointed as a watchman under the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS) for the construction of Walwade Percolation Tank. He worked from November 1982 to April 1985, when the project was completed and he was disengaged. The respondent filed a complaint alleging illegal retrenchment. The Labour Court, in Complaint (ULP) No.10 of 1989, held that the termination was illegal as the respondent had completed 240 days of service and the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not complied with. The Industrial Court, in Revision (ULP) No.4 of 1993, upheld the Labour Court's order. The petitioners argued that the respondent was a project-based employee under EGS, paid daily wages, and his disengagement upon project completion was not retrenchment. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Bhausaheb Nathu Falke (2002) which held that employees under EGS are not entitled to regularisation. The High Court agreed with the petitioners, holding that the respondent's employment was co-terminus with the project and that completion of 240 days does not create a right to permanency. The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court, and dismissed the respondent's complaint.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Employment Guarantee Scheme - Project-Based Employment - Termination upon Project Completion - The respondent was appointed as a watchman under the Employment Guarantee Scheme for a specific project (Walwade Percolation Tank). Upon completion of the project, his services were terminated. The Labour Court and Industrial Court held that the termination was illegal as the respondent had completed 240 days of service. The High Court reversed, holding that project-based employment under EGS does not create a right to regularisation or permanency, and termination upon project completion is not retrenchment. (Paras 5-10) B) Labour Law - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25F - Completion of 240 Days - No Right to Regularisation - The mere fact that an employee has completed 240 days of continuous service does not automatically entitle him to regularisation or protection under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, especially when the employment was for a specific project under a scheme like EGS. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Bhausaheb Nathu Falke (2002) to hold that such employees are not entitled to reinstatement. (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of a daily wage employee under the Employment Guarantee Scheme upon completion of the project amounts to illegal retrenchment or unfair labour practice, and whether completion of 240 days of service creates a right to permanency.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the judgments of the Labour Court dated 31.10.1992 in Complaint (ULP) No.10 of 1989 and the Industrial Court dated 24.6.1994 in Revision (ULP) No.4 of 1993, and dismissed the respondent's complaint.
Law Points
- Employment Guarantee Scheme
- project-based employment
- completion of 240 days does not create right to regularisation
- termination upon project completion is not retrenchment
- no unfair labour practice
