SURENDRA KUMAR SHARMA versus VIKAS ADHIKARI AND ANR.

SURENDRA KUMAR SHARMA versus VIKAS ADHIKARI AND ANR.

The employment was temporary and co-terminus with a scheme, and the post was abolished for want of funds; thus, termination does not amount to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and Section 25F is not attracted. The appellant was not in employment of Panchayat Samiti and is not entitled to any relief including reinstatement.

Parties
Appellant: Surendra Kumar Sharma; Respondents: Vikas Adhikari and Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal Against Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Retrenchment, Temporary Employment, Abolition of Post, Regularization, Jawahar Rozgar Yojna, Section 2(oo) Industrial Disputes Act, Section 25 F Industrial Disputes Act
Labour Law Retrenchment Temporary Employment Abolition of Post Regularization Jawahar Rozgar Yojna Section 2(oo) Industrial Disputes Act Section 25 F Industrial Disputes Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Surendra Kumar Sharma

Appellant

Vikas Adhikari and Anr.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal Against Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether termination of temporary employment under a scheme after completion of 240 days amounts to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
  2. 2 Whether the employee is entitled to relief including reinstatement when the post is abolished and the employment is co-terminus with the scheme
  3. 3 Whether Section 25F is attracted in cases of scheme-based temporary appointments

Ratio Decidendi

The employment was temporary and co-terminus with a scheme, and the post was abolished for want of funds; thus, termination does not amount to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and Section 25F is not attracted. The appellant was not in employment of Panchayat Samiti and is not entitled to any relief including reinstatement.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No relief to appellant; view of High Court affirmed
  • No order as to costs