Non renewal of Contract after Continuous Service - Can we terminate the service?

Can we terminate the service of a worker, i.e., a workman category employee working in a fixed-term contract for more than one year in a regular vacant post by non-renewal of the contract? Please suggest as it is urgent.

Dear friend,

What are the terms and conditions of the contract? If it is a fixed-term and if you do not wish to continue the contract, then you may confirm with him about the cessation of the contract. Write a letter to him regarding the discontinuation of the contract and specify his last working day.

Thanks,

Dinesh Divekar

Actually, we already terminated the contract through non-renewal. The problem is the employee was appointed for 1 year or until regular appointment, whichever is earlier, in a regular vacant post and for work of a regular nature. Now, the employee is raising an industrial dispute and claiming regularization.

The company has made the mistake of entering into a contract that states one year or until the regular appointment of the vacant post. The employee prima facie is right in his stance as the regular vacancy has not been filled (presumably). Provisions of the ID Act apply to the workman - whether regular or contractual.

Dear anonymous friend,

As I understand from your two posts:

1) Was the FTC of the then vacant regular post meant to be for just a year or until the post was filled by a regular candidate, whichever came first? Am I correct?

2) The FTC automatically expired after one year if the post remained unfilled by a regular candidate. Consequently, the FTC employee was released due to the non-renewal of the contract. If the post was not filled by a regular candidate within the one-year period, the existing contract would automatically end. Therefore, I cannot identify any illegality in this situation.

3) Unfortunately, the two subsequent posts do not mention whether the vacancy was later filled by a regular candidate, another FTC employee, or if it remained vacant.

4) Regarding the individual dispute raised by the former FTC employee under the IDAct, 1947, if he was a "workman" under the Act, he has the statutory right to pursue the matter regardless of the outcome. It is the management's responsibility to appropriately defend against the claim by referencing the conditional termination of the FTC based on the occurrence of either the lapse of one year or the filling of the vacancy with a regular candidate.

Thank you.

"It is for the management to resist the claim appropriately by citing the conditional termination of the FTC with any one of the earlier happening viz lapse of one year or filling up of the vacancy with a regular candidate."

The above suggestion by Umakantahn sir is appropriate as the contract agreement says so. However, it is a contract, and since the year is over and the conditions are not fulfilled except for the period. Looking at the positive side, what if the contract is extended for the next six months with clear terms of the contract with the condition of FTC. Just a suggestion.

Dear Friend,

The employee on a contract term can be terminated as per the terms of the contract, or the service comes to an end on the cessation of the contract period or non-renewal of the contract.

Now to discuss in line with Industrial Dispute:

A1: Why did the company not fill up the vacancy of a continuous nature over a period of one year?

A2: It is to be understood that the person discharged his service satisfactorily till the cessation of the contract put on against the vacancy of a permanent nature.

A3: It is to be understood that the vacancy is still existing but not yet filled up.

Under the above circumstances, the case becomes fit for raising an industrial dispute to claim regularization on said post. There is only an option before the management to fill up the vacancy or to declare the position does not exist (but should have logic) or call the person for an interview along with others (but others should have better competency & experience in the job).

Dear colleague,

When the contract period under the FTC comes to an end, there is no need to terminate it by any employer action. Termination of the contract is automatic with the efflux of time. At most, a letter intimating the employee of its coming to an end is sufficient.

Regarding his raising a dispute, it is his right, and you will have to counter it with proper legal action.

Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR Consultant.

Dear Friends,

Thank you for all your valuable comments. Unfortunately, the vacant post is not yet filled. The reason for non-renewal was that the employee did not get along well with his immediate boss (who is not his employer) due to some reason and misbehaved with him some time ago. Now, his immediate boss ruined his CR, leading to the non-renewal. As he was on a contractual basis, the management did not conduct an inquiry into the issue nor issued any notice.

It is also true that the employee was a workman and had completed more than 240 days of work in that year. His work was undoubtedly of a regular nature. The question now is, how can he raise an individual industrial dispute for regularization when he is not sponsored by any union? Individual absorption cannot exist. Can he raise an individual industrial dispute for unfair labor practice? If so, is he entitled to regularization?

Dear anonymous friend,

Regarding the episode of the stand-off between the FTC employee and his immediate boss cryptically mentioned in your post, I would like to remind you of the proverb "If the mountain will not come to Mohammed, Mohammed will go to the mountain," which means that if things are not going your way, you will have to adjust the way they are. Knowing well that it was the immediate boss who can either make your friend's career regular or mar his FTC employment, he/she ought to have the patience and the suaveness to the required extent.

Whether it is an individual dispute under section 2-A(1) against illegal termination or a complaint under section 25-T against unfair labor practice under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 respectively chosen by the affected FTC employee friend of yours, the success seems very remote to me because of the terms of the FTC mentioned in your first two successive posts. Better advise your friend to move on with the green pastures waiting before him instead of wasting his time, energy, and money in unnecessary litigation.