Jharkhand High Court
Employer In Relation To The ... vs Union Of India & Others on 9 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P. (L) No. 7059 of 2012
........
Employer in relation to the Management of
Life Insurance Corporation of India .... ..... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Others .... ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
............
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Manish Kumar, A.C. to
Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Advocate.
........
06/09.09.2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sachin Kumar,
appearing on behalf of Employer in relation to the Management of
Life Insurance Company through its Manager (Legal & Housing
Property Department) namely, Sri Naveen Kumar Jaiswal and
learned counsel, Mr. Manish Kumar, A.C. to learned counsel for the
respondent no. 2, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
respondent no. 2 - Sri Umesh Prasad Choudhary is not a workman as
defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that
from perusal of Letter dated 02.06.1992, which has been brought on
record vide Annexure-4, it appears that the respondent no. 2 was
discharged from the services of the Corporation w.e.f. 01.04.192 and
the said order was not a stigmatic order, rather the respondent no. 2,
who was appointed initially as Apprentice Development Officer on
15.04.1989 and on completion of training, respondent no. 2 was
appointed as Probationary Development Officer, but his service has
never been confirmed in view of Clause-11 of Letter of Appointment
issued to the respondent no. 2, Sri Umesh Prasad Choudhary brought
on record as Annexure-2 at page-23 of the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that
no notice is required to discharge such persons, who are not
permanent employee and they are on probationary period.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance to the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Chauharya
Tripathi Vs. Life Corporation of India & Others reported in (2015)
7 SCC 263, M. Venugopal Vs. Divisional Manager, Life
Corporation of India reported in (1994) 2 SCC 323 and also in the
case of Life Insurance Corporation of India through the Divisional
Manager & Others Vs. Haripad Rahidas reported in (2005) 4 JCR
356 (Jhr.).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in
view of Section 2 (oo) & 2(bb) of Industrial Disputes Act such
relieve of the workman from service on not confirmed, as a result of
non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer
and workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being
terminated under stipulation in that behalf contained therein is
permissible under the law, as such, no illegality has been committed,
as such, the impugned order passed by the learned Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Dhanbad under Reference No. 95/96 vide award dated 14.05.2012 is
itself bad in law and contrary to the judgments passed by the Apex
Court.
Learned counsel, Mr. Manish Kumar, A.C. to learned counsel
for the respondent no. 2, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, has submitted
that the matter may be listed on 16.09.2021, so as to address this
Court and also to reply the submissions made by learned counsel for
the petition.
Considering the same, put up this case on 16.09.2021.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sunil/-
