Karnataka High Court: Fixed-Term Employment Does Not Guarantee Permanent Position”
KARMA GLOBAL, besides its foray into specialized areas like staffing, onboarding, payroll, curbing regulatory risk, auditing and abiding by all labour law-related compliance, has joined hands with topmost Indian legal firm in order to further strengthen its enduring relationships with its over 500+ clients with cost-effective and time-bound legal solutions.
Karnataka High Court: No guarantee for permanency under the fixed term – Yogeesha T. N. versus M/s. Kennametal India. !
Background :
The petitioner was appointed as an operator “on temporary basis” on 25.09.2010 for a fixed period of twenty four months, renewal of engagement for a further period of one year with effect from 2012 to 2013 was served on the petitioner.
- The respondent-management issued another letter of extension of the employment of the petitioner as operator on 01.09.2015 on temporary basis for a further period of twelve months, i.e., from 01/10/2015 to 30/09/2016, the petitioner though acknowledged the letter of extension of employment did not continue his services with the respondent-management and stayed away from work with effect from 12.10.2015 without obtaining any leave.
- The respondent-company wrote letter to the petitioner for his full and final settlement. After the period of nearly three and a half months, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 29.01.2016 claiming that though the petitioner had reported to duty in the respondent-company, the respondent – company has not given work. The respondent- company replied and stated that the petitioner has not reported to duty as contended by the petitioner and has remained silent for three and a half months without giving a single representation.
- The petitioner raised dispute before the I Addl. Labour Court (“Labour Court” for short) alleging refusal of employment by the respondent – company claiming reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits since his refusal of employment by respondents with effect from 14.10.2015.
- The respondent-company appeared and filed counter statement, inter alia, disputing that the company had stopped the services by way of termination/refusal of employment with effect from 14.10.2015 with valid or proper reasons. The respondent-company contended that the petitioner has continuously remained absent from work without obtaining any leave and the respondent-company, at no point of time, prohibited the petitioner from attending work from 12.10.2015. The company contended that the petitioner did not accept the renewal letter dated 01.09.2015, which clearly shows that the petitioner was not interested in continuing his employment in the respondent- company.
The Labour Court framed three issues, which reads as under:
- “Whether the first party proves that the second party management has illegally refused him employment with effect from 14.10.2015?
- Whether the second party management proves that the first party is not a permanent employee of the second party?
- To what relief the first party is entitled?”
The Labour Court by the impugned order held that the petitioner has failed to prove that the management has illegally refused employment with effect from 14.10.2015.
The management proved that the petitioner is not a permanent employee of the second party and by the impugned order dismissed the claim statement filed by the workman under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1988.
In the result, the point framed for consideration is answered in favour of the respondent-management and this court passed the following:
(i) writ petition is dismissed
(ii) The impugned order passed by the Labour Court stands confirmed.
