Ramesh Kumar vs D.S.I.D.C. And Anr.
2007 Latest Caselaw 549 Del

JUDGMENT

Rekha Sharma, J.

1. Shri Ramesh Kumar, who was employed with M/s Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to Labour Court No. VII, Delhi, with the following terms of reference:

Whether the services of Sh. Ramesh Kumar have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?

2. The stand of the management before the Labour Court was that the workman was employed as a watchman on muster roll basis for a specific period against a specific work. It was submitted that the management was given the work of multipurpose Community Centre by the Rural Development Department at village Budh Nagar and when the said work was completed, the workman was discharged as he was no longer required. The Labour Court relying upon the appointment letter of the workman dated 31st December, 1998 (Ex.ME1/B) held that the workman was not entitled to any relief. Consequently, the reference was answered in the negative.

3. It will be appropriate to reproduce Clauses (1) and (10) of the appointment letter. The same are as under:

(1) The work is purely temporary for the stipulated period, the incumbent shall have no right of extension whatsoever consequent upon the expiry of the contract period.

(10) The personal deployed for the service as mentioned in the schedule shall have no right whatsoever to get subsequent or recruitment in the corporation and period absorption of such services rendered by him shall be treated as contract.

4. The contents of the appointment letter leave no scope for doubt that the appointment of the workman was purely on temporary basis for a specific period and was to come to an end upon the expiry of the contract period. It was in no uncertain terms stipulated therein that the incumbent had no right of extension after the expiry of the contract period. The workman himself also in his statement before the Labour Court admitted that he was appointed as a muster roll employee. Of course, he also stated that it was wrong to say that he was not performing his duties properly or that he was not liable to be removed on completion of the contract period but this part of his statement, in the face of the appointment letter, is of no consequence.

5. In view of what has been noticed above, the workman has no right to continue in service.

6. The writ petition is disposed of.