Can a Long-term Sweeper Be Terminated Without Notice in Defence Offices? Seeking Legal Insights

Good evening to all friends,

Please help me with the above-given matter. A person who has been working as a sweeper on daily wages in the Defence Estate office for the past 17 years has been terminated from service without any notice. The employer department's plea is that they are not an industry and fall under sovereign functions, so the Industrial Disputes Act does not apply to them. Is this correct? Please assist me with this issue, providing any relevant case laws.

Yes.

The labor laws are not applicable to defense establishments. The injured person should approach the concerned court of law (i.e., Central Administrative Tribunal) for any remedy. If anyone has a different experience and can provide their input, it would be helpful for Mr. Aalok Dobhal to receive some support.

Understanding Service Rules in Long-Term Employment

A service of 17 years is indeed a long period. During such a time, the worker should have become familiar with the service rules or conditions applicable to their case. What was their designation? From which source were they receiving their salary or wages? There are also Defence Ordnance Factories, where specific rules or conditions of service may apply. The worker who has been terminated should have first utilized the available channels in their service conditions. It is also not clear what is meant by "Defence Estate Office." There is a possibility that the worker may have been working on a contract basis, engaged through a private contractor, if such arrangements are allowed in a defense estate office.

Appointment Orders and Service Rules

When issuing an appointment order in any government department, detailed terms and conditions of employment are provided to the person receiving the offer. These documents also specify the type of service rules applicable to such individuals. Therefore, I suggest the initiator of this thread ascertain all such facts from the concerned worker. This information will make it easier for seniors and experts in this forum to provide an informed opinion on the matter.

Regards

Yes, why not? Establishment Bharat Electronics Ltd and Bharat Earth Movers Ltd, which worked under the Ministry of Defence, were compliant with the labor laws of the country. In addition to that, various vendors who worked for defense procurement and production also adhered to the same regulations.

Thanks and Regards,

Sumit Kumar Saxena

Legal Matter Regarding Labor Law and Army Act

In the above matter, I am clear that the concerned worker has succeeded in this matter under labor law. The learned labor court has ordered the reinstatement of the said worker with continuity of his past services and 25 percent of back wages. The respondent department has filed a writ petition in the high court, arguing that they are not an industry and that the learned labor court erred on this point. Another contention is that they are governed by the Army Act of 1950.

Is there any case law on this point that the Army Act does not apply to civilians, as the concerned worker was not performing any sovereign function by nature of working as a sweeper in the department on daily wages?

Examination of Terms and Conditions

Sir, I may again submit that in order to go into detail, it is essential to examine what the terms and conditions of the appointment/service of the said worker were. Is it mentioned in the terms and conditions of appointment that his services will be regulated as per the provisions of the Army Act, 1950? Furthermore, you have also not clarified whether the said worker was directly appointed or engaged through any contractor.

Relevance of Court Cases

I may further submit that, in my opinion, only the relevant court cases that have been decided can be referred to in the case. There is no utility in depending on citations that have no relevance in the case. Since it appears that the case is sub-judice, it will be more important if the advocate engaged by the worker searches out relevant judgments, particularly with reference to the pleas/contentions of the appellant department.

Regards

Dear Aalok Dobhal, your posts, both original and subsequent, seem to be lacking in essential particulars. The Defence Estate Service comes under civil services. As such, the Estate Offices look after the supervisory and administrative functions of the Cantonments within their jurisdictions. Cantonments are local bodies, and as such, the employees therein are covered by the provisions of Labour Laws like the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, etc. Probably, the individual must have been employed as a sweeper on the roll of the cantonment board, not in the Estate Office as a contingent worker on the muster roll. Please come forward with full details.

Regards