SURENDRA KUMAR SHARMA v. VIKAS ADHIKARI & Anr.

Appellant was employed temporarily 011 daily wages for 100 days under a Scheme. The Scheme was merged with another Scheme known E as Jawahar Rozgar Vojna. On the expiry of the 100 days, instead of rendering the appellant jobless, he was given yet another temporary employment. This employment was extended from time to time. As such his employment came to an end after he completed 240 days. He initiated proceedings against Vikas Adhikari Panchayat Samiti alleging himself to F be in employment of Panchayat Samiti. On his filing writ petition, High Court by interim order protected his employment. However, the post was abolished and consequently his services came to be terminated. Single Judge of High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that as the posts themselves have been abolished, the question of regularization did not arise; that the employment under the Scheme was on adhoc basis and of G temporary nature co-terminus with the Scheme itself, appellant could not be said to have been retrenched within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of •he Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 so as to be entitled to the relief of reinstatement if the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Act were not complied with. High Court also found that appellant was not in the employment of Panchayat Samiti. Writ appeal against the order of Single 168 H S.K. SHARMA v. VIKAS ADHIKARI 169 Judge \Yas dismissed by Division Bench of High Court. A In appeal to this Court appellant contended that without regard to the nature of employment, once a workman has worked in continuous employment for a period of 240 days, his employment could not have been terminated except by complying with the provisions of Section 25 F, hence he would be deemed to have been retrenched and entitled to the relief of B reinstatement. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: I. Appellant is not entitled to any relief and the view taken by High Court cannot be found fault with. Appellant was a daily wager C in a Scheme and knew it well that his employment was co-terminus with the Scheme. The post against which the appellant worked has been abolished for want of funds and has ceased to exist. [173-H; 174-A, BJ