http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: SUB-DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR OF POST,VAIKAN & ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THEYYAM JOSEPH ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/02/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1271            JT 1996 (2)   457  1996 SCALE  (2)386

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH    C.A.NOS. 3392, 3391, 3387, 3389, 3388 AND 3390 OF 1996    [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6163/93, 2593/94, 10190,                    1918, 17577, 1919/95]                             AND                CIVIL  APPEAL NO. 2431 OF 1994                          O R D E R      C.A. NOS. 3389, 3390, 3387, 3388 AND 3392 of 1996    [@ SLP Nos.1918, 1919, 10190 and 17577/95, 6163/93 and                      C.A. No. 2431/94]      Leave granted.      We have heard the learned counsel on both sides.      Shri  N.G.   Malik,  E.D.   Packer  was   recruited  on September 21,  1991 and sent for training from September 23, 1991 to October 2, 1991. The respondent came to be appointed as a  substitute w.e.f. September 21, 1991 without observing any formality  of appointment, as a stop-gap arrangement. It would appear that N.G. Malik had not reported for duty after the training  and the  respondent continued  in the  post of E.D. Packer.  On August  2, 1993,  without  notice,  he  was terminated from  service. He  approached the  CAT, Ahmedabad Bench in O.S. No.51/1994 and same are the facts in all other cases.      The Tribunal  by its  impugned order dated May 12, 1994 allowed the  case, set  aside the  orders of  termination of Sailesh Kumar  on  the  ground  that  the  appellant  is  an industry, the  respondent  is  a  workman  governed  by  the Industrial Disputes  Act, 1947 (for short, ’the Act’). Under Section 25F,  no notice  was issued  terminating the service nor  retrenchment  compensation  was  paid,  therefore,  the respondent is entitled to reinstatement and it would be open to the appellant to take action against him according to the relevant provisions  of  the  Act.  Thus  these  appeals  by special leave.  Similar  views  are  expressed  by  all  the Tribunals covered in the batch.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

    Shri  Goswami,   learned   senior   counsel   for   the appellants, contended  that  appointments  of  these  Extra- Departmental  Agents   are  regulated  under  the  statutory instructions issued  by the  Director General  of Postal and Telecommunication from time to time. Being governed by those statutory rules,  they are not permanent employees. They are only part-time  employees on  contract basis  subject to the conditions  mentioned   therein.  Therefore,   neither   the appellant is  an industry  nor is  the respondent  a workman under the  provisions of  the Act.  The Tribunal, therefore, was wrong  in its finding that the provisions of the Act are attracted. The  learned counsel  for the respondent and also Sri Nambiar,  counsel appearing  for the  other respondents, contended that  the counsel  who appeared for Union of India before the  Tribunal have  conceded that the appellant is an industry and,  therefore, the  Tribunal  was  right  in  its conclusion that the procedure prescribed in the Act shall be followed. Since  no notice  under Section 25F of the Act was given, the  termination  of  the  service  is  illegal  and, therefore, is consistent with law.      Having regard  to the  contentions, the question arises whether the  appellant is  an Industry? India as a sovereign socialist, secular  democratic republic  has to establish an egalitarian social  order under  rule of  law.  The  welfare measures partake  the character  of sovereign  functions and the traditional  duty to maintain law and order is no longer the concept  of the  State. Directive  principles  of  State Policy enjoin  on the  State diverse duties under Part IV of the Constitution  and the  performance  of  the  duties  are constitutional functions. One of the duty is of the State is to provide  telecommunication service  to the general public and an  amenity,  and  so  is  one  essential  part  of  the sovereign functions  of the  State as a welfare State. It is not, therefore, an industry.      The appointment  of the  respondent is  governed by the Rules in  Section III  of the compilation of Swamy’s service Rules for Extra-Departmental Staff in Postal Department. The Rules provide  the method of recruitment thereunder. The age qualification has  been prescribed  between 18  to 65 years. The educational  qualifications have  been prescribed  with. Matriculation   as    minimum   qualification    for   Extra Departmental ED  Sub-Postmasters and  ED Branch Postmasters. VIII Standard  as minimum educational qualification has been prescribed for  ED Delivery Agents, ED stamp Vendors and all other categories  of EDAs  and preference  is given  to  the candidates with  Matriculation qualification.  Income  limit and holding  of property  have  been  regulated  in  Rule  3 thereof. It  is mentioned that the persons who take over the agency must  be one  who has an adequate means of livelihood and is  a resident  of the  place as mentioned in the Rules. The persons are selected under the specified conditions, any appointment made is in the nature of a contract liable to be terminated by  notice given in writing. Sub-rules (3) to (5) prescribe the  verification of  the antecedents  and medical examination etc. Rule 6 provides that employment to disabled ex-service personnel is to be given. Rule 7 gives preference to  the  SC  and  ST  in  appointments.  Rule  8  finds  the percentage of posts for the recruitment of the Scheduled and Scheduled Tribe  candidates. Rule  9 gives  right to appoint even the  teachers as  Extra Departmental  Agents.  Rule  10 prescribes the  method of  appointment of  the  teachers  as Extra-Departmental Agents.  Rule 11  prohibits employment of near  relation  in  the  same  office.  Rule  12  prescribes appointment of  ED Branch Post Master by Inspectors. Rule 13 prescribes provisional  appointment  of  Extra  Departmental

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

Agents.      The scale  of pay  has been prescribed in Section V and for Calculation  of Consolidated  Allowance instructions are issued from  time to  time under Rule 2.1 dealing with Extra Departmental Sub-Postmasters/ED Stores/ED Sub-Record Clerks, The basic  allowance payable  to them  shall be subject to a minimum of  Rs.385/- P.M.  and maximum  of Rs.620/- P.M. The workload of them has been mentioned in Rule 2.1 (b) (c) (d), Rule 6  prescribes for Office Maintenance Allowance and Rule 5 for  cycle allowance.  Rule 7  relates to Fixed Stationery Charge. lt  would thus  be seen  that payment  of salary has been regulated  under  these  rules  elaborated  in  further rules.      Section II  provides for  EDA Conduct  & Service Rules. Rule 6 deals with power of termination and reads as under :      "6.Termination  of  Services.-  (a)      The services of an employee who has      not  already   rendered  more  than      three  years’   continuous  service      from the  date of  his  appointment      shall be  liable to  termination at      any time  by a  notice  in  writing      given either by the employee to the      appointing  authority   or  by  the      appointing   authority    to    the      employee;      (b) the period of such notice shall      be one month;           Provided that  the service  of      any such employee may be terminated      forthwith and  on such termination,      the employee  shall be  entitled to      claim  a   sum  equivalent  to  the      amount of  his basic allowance plus      Dearness Allowance  for the  period      of the  notice at the same rates at      which   he    was   drawing    them      immediately before  the termination      of his  services, or,  as the  case      may be,  for the  period  by  which      such  notice  falls  short  of  one      month.      Note. -  Where the intend effect of      such   termination    has   to   be      immediate, it  should be  mentioned      that one  month’s  basic  allowance      plus Dearness  Allowance  is  being      remitted to the ED Agent in lieu of      the notice  of  one  month  through      money order." Rule 7 prescribes the nature of the penalties which reads as under:      "7.Nature  of   penalties   -   The      following penalties  may, for  good      and  sufficient   reasons  and   as      hereinafter provided, be imposed on      an  employee   by  the   appointing      authority, namely;      (i) Censure;      (ii) Debarring  of ED  Agents  from      appearing   in    the   recruitment      examination for the post of postman      and/or from  being  considered  for      recruitment        as        Postal      Assistants/Sorting Assistants for a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

    period of  one year or two years or      for a  period not  exceeding  three      years;      (iii Debarring  of ED  Agents  from      being considered for recruitment of      Group  ’D’   for   a   period   not      exceeding three years.      (iv) Recovery from allowance of the      whole or part of any pecuniary loss      caused   to   the   Government   by      negligence or breach of orders;      (v)  Removal   from  service  which      shall not be a disqualification for      future employment;      (vi) Dismissal  from service  which      shall     ordinarily      be      a      disqualification     for     future      employment."      It would  thus be  seen that the method of recruitment, the conditions  of service, the scale of pay and the conduct Rules regulating  the service  conditions of  ED Agents  are governed by  the statutory regulation. It is now settled law of this  Court  that  these  employees  are  civil  servants regulated by  these conducts  rules. Therefore, by necessary implication, they  do not  belong to the category of workmen attracting the  provisions of  the Act. The approach adopted by the Tribunal, therefore; is clearly illegal.      It is  seen that  the respondent  was  appointed  as  a substitute to  the regular  candidate who did not ultimately turn up  for duty after training. The respondent having been appointed and  having worked  de hors  the rule,  therefore, remains to  be an  ad hoc Extra Departmental Packer. He will be entitled  under the  Conduct Rule 6 to the payment of the amount to  be calculated  for one  month allowance plus D.A. The same  shall be  paid. The  Tribunal was  wholly wrong in directing  the   appellant  to  terminate  the  services  in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The respondent is at liberty  to apply  for, along with other candidates, when any vacancy  arises and  is  filled  up.  The  appellant  is directed to  consider his  case  which  will  also  be  done according to  the rules. He may be considered if he is found eligible and may be appointed to the post per rules      The appeals are accordingly allowed. C.A. No. 3387/96 ---------------- (@ SLP (C) No. 2593/94)      Leave granted.      The facts  of this  case are  that the  respondent  was selected  on   regular  basis   as  substitute   to   Extra- Departmental  Packer  at  Calicut.  While  he  was  working, recruitment  was   made  by   calling  the  names  from  the Employment Exchange.  Since his  same was  not sponsored, he was terminated  from employment.  In view  of the  reasoning given above, he being temporary working candidate, he cannot get  any   right;  however,  his  case  is  directed  to  be considered along  with other  candidates and  if he is found eligible, he  may be  considered and  appointed according to the Rules.      The appeal is allowed. C.A. Nos. 3385-86 of 1996 ------------------------- [@ SLP Nos. 587-88/92]      Leave granted. Delay condoned.      Though the  principle of  law laid down hereinbefore is settled since the respondent has been working since 1983, we

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

decline to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.      Appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.