IN THE HONBLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

_________________________________
Santosh Gupta
(Appellant)
V.

State Bank of Patiala

(Respondent)
____________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ONINDYA MITRA
SEMESTER IV
SECTION B
ROLL NO. 194
 Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations . 3
Index of Authorities4
Statement of Facts ......5
Issues Raised.. 6
Summary Of Pleadings...7
Written Submission
Contention 1...8 - 9
Prayer For Relief ...10

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

&And

AC.Appeal Case

AIR..All India Report

Edn.Edition

Honble..Honorable

i.e. ...............That is

p. Page number

SCSupreme Court

SCR..Supreme Court Report

S...Section

v.....verses

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Acts
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Cases referred

Delhi Public School, M. P. v Teshlal Prajapati

L. Robert D'Souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and Anr.

Hindustan Steel v. Labour Court, Orissa

Books

Introduction to Labour and Industrial Law, Avtar Singh

Dictionaries
Blacks Law Dictionary
The Law Lexicon, Bakshi, P.M., Ashoka Law House, New Delhi

4
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Santosh Gupta, the appellant-Work man (a woman), was employed in the

State Bank of Patiala, the Mall, Patiala, from July 13, 1973, till August 21,
1974, when her services were terminated.

2. There were some breaks in service for a few days , but despite the breaks,
the workman had admittedlyworked for 240 days in the year preceding
August 21, 1974.

3. The workman failed to pass the test which if passed, would have enabled her
to be confirmed in the service.

4. On the termination of her services the petition brought the current suit before
the court.

5
 ISSUES RAISED

__________________________________________________________

Whether the termination of appellant service is retrenchment within the

meaning of that expression in section 2 (oo) of IDA 1947 was valid or not?

6
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Whether the termination of appellant service is retrenchment within the

meaning of that expression in section 2 (oo) of IDA 1947 was valid or not?
Yes, the termination was valid and cannot be termed as retrenchment of it is due to a
stipulation in the contract of service.

7
 WRITTEN SUBMISSION
_______________________________________

CONTENTION 1:

Section 2 (oo) of the industrial disputes act declares that "retrenchment means the termination by
the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a
punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of
employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that
behalf; or

(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of
employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract
being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or

(c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health.

The section provides that termination because of any reason other than the exceptions therein
would amount to retrenchment of the employee.

It humbly submitted before the court that the termination of the employee in the present case
would not amount to retrenchment under section 2 oo of Industrial Dispute Act as the reason of
termination was the failure of the appellant to pass the required test for renewal of the contract

Sub clause (bb) of Section 2 oo provides that termination of employment due to a stipulation
under the contract would not amount to retrenchment .

8
Passing the required test was such a stipulation which the appellant failed and therefore her
employment was terminated.

In Delhi Public School, M. P. v Teshlal Prajapati1, a person was engaged as a typist on daily
wage basis for fixed period from time to time, non-extension of his service on expiry of said
period does not amount to retrenchment.

Moreover, retrenchment means discharge of surplus labour or staff in a continuing industry. It

means the removal of the dead weight of uneconomic surplus".2

In the present case the termination of the employee was not due to availability of surplus labour
but due to inability of the employee to pass the requisite test for confirming future service.

In L. Robert D'Souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and Anr. 3 , and in

Hindustan Steel v. Labour Court, Orissa4, it has been held that termination or removal of
employee due to non renewal of contract doesnot amount to retrenchment of the employee.

As the termination is not retrenchment, the respondent is under no obligation to pay

compensation for the termination of appellants services.

1
(2000) 9 SCC 671
2
Avatar Singh, Introduction to Labour and Industrial Laws, 3 rd edn, 2015
3
[1979] 1L.L.J. 211
4
1977 AIR 31, 1977 SCR (1) 586

9
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

______________________________________________________________________________

In the lights of the facts stated, arguments advanced, authorities cited the Counsel shall request
the Honble Supreme Court of India to declare and adjudge:

a. The appeal should be dismissed.

b. The termination of employment was not retrenchment within the definition that term in
Section 2 (oo) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
c. The respondent is not required to pay compensation for termination.

All of which is most respectfully submitted.

PLACE: COUNSEL FOR RESPONEDNT

DELHI ONINDYA MITRA

DATE OF FILING: ROLL NO.-194

6 APRIL 2017

10