SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S. Rajendra Babu and Y.K. Sabharwal,JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 6038 of 1998. D/d. 12.09.2000.

Delhi Public School, M.P. - Appellant

Versus

Teshlal Prajapati And Another - Respondents

A. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 2(oo)(bb) Nonrenewal of contract of employment - Exception clause in Section 2(oo)(bb) - High Court noticed that on an earlier occasion, on the question of retrenchment - It was decided in that the exception clause in Section 2(oo)(bb) would not apply in this case and as that aspect of the matter had become final it was no longer open - Held that, Labour Court was bound by the decision of the High Court on this aspect of the matter.

[Para 1]

B. Termination - Non-renewal of employment contract - Respondent offered fresh appointment on ad hoc basis - Offer declined by Respondent - However, High Court noticed that respondent did not press this plea before Labour Court and held that plea be deemed to have been given up - It was not appropriate for appellant to hang on to said offer - Under the circumstances, it was quite natural for respondent to decline the offer and insist upon a permanent appointment - Order of High Court justified.

[Para ]

ORDER

S. Rajendra Babu, J. - This appeal arises out of an order made by the High Court, on a challenge to an award made by the Labour Court on the ground that the term of contract of employment of the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) had expired and such a termination from service is governed by Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that on the expiry of the term employment, an offer had been made to the respondent on 14-6-1988 for employment again which had been declined by him. Therefore, the respondent having lost his claim, the Labour Court ought to have rejected the same. The High Court noticed that on an earlier occasion, on the question of retrenchment the matter had come up before it in MP No. 155 of 1992 and it was decided in that case that the exception clause in Section 2(oo)(bb) would not apply in this case and as that aspect of the matter had become final it was no longer open to the appellant to reopen that issue. Therefore, as was rightly noticed by the High Court, the Labour Court was bound by the decision of the High Court on this aspect of the matter.

2. So far as the second point is concerned, a perusal of the offer made by the appellant that it would give a fresh appointment, it is clear that the same was only on ad hoc basis and for a period of ten-and-a-half months on a consolidated scale of rupees five hundred per month. Naturally, the respondent would decline the offer and insist upon a permanent appointment. In the circumstances, we do not think it will be appropriate for the appellant to hang on to that offer. On the other hand, the High Court noticed that the appellant had not pursued with this plea before the Labour Court and therefore, must be deemed to have given up the same. That finding also appears to be justified in the circumstances of the case. In this background, we do not think there is any good reason to interfere with the order made by the High Court.

3. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Appeal Dismissed.