I. Srinivasa Rao v. Form-NIC-OGS/WA {KSRANI}
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Subject to the above observations, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ........REGISTRAR December 08, 2008 To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {KSRANI}
Judgment
Cause title
5) I. Srinivasa Rao S/o.I. Appa Rao, aged about 30 years, R/o. D.No.22-6-10, Vempalla Nagar, Pedagantyad (Post), Visakhapatnam – 530 044. ... APPELLANTS
AND National Ship Design and Research Center, (Autonomous Society under the Administrative Control of Ministry of Shipping, Government of India), Gandhigram, Visakhapatnam-5, Rep. by its Director. ...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Appellants: MR.C. DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: MR.S.V. BHATT The Court made the following:
J U D G M E N T :
(Per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice)
Being aggrieved by an order dated 23.7.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.7570 of 2007, some of the original petitioners have filed this appeal, whose services were terminated in accordance with the terms of a contract entered into between them and the respondent society.
The original petitioners – appellants had worked as Apprentices under the respondent society and upon successful completion of the period of apprenticeship, on 03.01.1998, they were given appointment as Draughtsmen for a period of five years, with a condition that their services were liable to be terminated by either party upon giving notice of three months.
Thereafter, before completion of the period of five years, on 01.10.2001, another contract had been entered into whereby the salary of the appellants was increased substantially and they were being paid Rs.11,000/- per month, with a condition that their services could be terminated by either party by giving three months notice.
Case of the respondent society before the learned Single Judge was that services of the appellants had to be terminated because there was no work of Draughtsmen for them, as the society was likely to be closed down. After hearing the concerned advocates, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioners – the present appellants would not get any protection under the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, the petition was rejected.
Upon hearing the learned advocates and looking to the facts of the case, we are also of the view that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error while rejecting the petition because services of the appellants were terminated in pursuance of a contract of service entered among the appellants and the respondent society.
Upon hearing the learned advocates, it appears from what has been submitted by the appellants that possibly there might be some work of Draughtsmen in the respondent society and if it is so, we are sure that the society would prefer the present appellants in the matter of appointment of Draughtsmen as they have been trained as Draughtsmen by the said society.
Subject to the above observations, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ........REGISTRAR December 08, 2008 To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {KSRANI}
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.