http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  648 of 2007

PETITIONER: Punjab State Electricity Board and Anr

RESPONDENT: Sudesh Kumar Puri

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/02/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & TARUN CHATTERJEE

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 16855 of 2005) [With C.A. No 649 of 2007 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C)   No.16931 of 2005,  C.A. No 650 of  2007 (Arising out of  S.L.P. (C)  No.17018 of 2005, C.A. No 651 of 2007 (Arising  out of S.L.P. (C)  No.18746 of 2005]

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

       Leave granted.

       Challenge in these appeals is to the consolidated orders  passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High  Court dismissing the four writ petitions filed by the appellant  No.1-Punjab State Electricity Board (in short the ’Board’).  The  respondent in each case was engaged as Meter Reader on  contract basis by the appellant-Board.  After disengagement  he made a claim stating that he had worked for a considerably  long continuous period, his services have been terminated by  the Board without following any procedure and without  payment of retrenchment compensation. Claim for  reinstatement with back wages was made. On failure of the  conciliation proceedings, matter was referred by the concerned  State Government to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court,  Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as the ’Labour Court’) under  Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the  ’Act’).  Stand of the appellant before the Labour Court was that  the applicant was engaged as private Meter Reader on contract  basis which was renewed on two occasions and at the expiry of  the contract period, the services have been dispensed with.  It  was specifically averred that the applicant concerned had  never been employed by the Board and was not a workman  under the provisions of the Act.  During the concerned period  a sum of Re.1/- for reading was paid as per the contract.   There was neither any monthly salary nor the claimant could  be treated as a person appointed by the Board.   

The Labour Court held that the claimant had been  engaged as a Meter Reader and had worked in that capacity  for a considerably long period, his services have been  terminated without notice or payment of compensation.  It was  concluded that the claimant had completed service for more  than 240 days within the preceding twelve months, and he  had been retrenched without following the procedure provided  under Section 25-F of the Act, and as such was entitled to be  reinstated.  However, the back wages were restricted to 25%.   The Board filed writ petitions questioning the award in each

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

case.  The claimants also filed writ petitions questioning  quantum of back wages.  

The High Court referred to a decision of this Court in  Steel Authority of India Ltd. And Ors. v. National Union  Waterfront Workers and Ors. (2001(7) SCC 1) in which it was  held that the contract was a camouflage by the Board with a  view to avoid the provisions of the Act.  Accordingly, the writ  petitions filed by the appellant - Board were dismissed by the  impugned judgment in each case.  The writ petitions filed by  the respondents were also dismissed on the ground that they  were not engaged on any fixed salary.

       Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that  without any material, the Labour Court held that the contract  was a camouflage. Absolutely no material was placed on  record to justify such a stand and/or conclusion.  It is not in  dispute that there was a contract providing for payment of  Re.1/- for each meter reading.  The contract was renewed  more than once.  Merely because the meter reading work has  not decreased, that cannot be a basis to hold that there was a  camouflage adopted.   

       Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand  submitted that both the Labour Court and the High Court  have recorded finding about the camouflage.   

At the outset, it has to be noted that the decision in Steel  Authority’s case (supra) has absolutely no relevance so far as  the present dispute is concerned. That relates to a case of  contract labour. Present dispute is not a case of that nature.   On the contrary, it appears from the materials placed on  record that there was an agreement governing engagement.   The payment was made per meter reading at a fixed rate and  there was no regular employment ever offered to any of the  respondents.  The provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act  clearly applies to the facts of the present case.   

Section 2(oo)(bb) reads as follows:              "2(oo) retrenchment means the termination by  the employer of the service of a workman for  any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a  punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary  action, but does not include -  (a)\005.. (b)\005. (bb)    termination of the service of the workman  as a result of the non-renewal of the contract  of employment between the employer and the  workman concerned on its expiry or of such  contract being terminated under a stipulation  in that behalf contained therein; or"           The material on record clearly established that the  engagement of the respondent was for specific period and  conditional.  It appears that on the appointment of regular  meter readers, the engagement has been dispensed with.  The  contracts clearly governed the terms of engagement.

       Above being the position, the orders passed by the  Labour Court and the High Court are clearly untenable and  are quashed.  In two cases the concerned respondents have  been engaged again on contractual basis. It shall not be  construed that we have expressed any opinion on such

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

subsequent contractual engagement.

       Appeals are allowed without any order as to costs.