Creative Garments Vs. Kunwar Prasad and anr.

.....the part-time lecturers form a class by themselves and the said classification between part time lecturers and full-time teachers for purpose of granting retrial benefits cannot be said to be unconstitutional or bad in law -- consumer protection act, 1986 -- article 16; right to pension held, it is true that the pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer. however, the right of pension is always subject to the rules. it is not inherent in the employment. though pension is a payment for a past service rendered and it is a social welfare measure, but it is well settled that an employee is not entitled to pension de hors the rules. in the instant case the government resolution dated 21.7.1983 held that the said pension scheme is only applicable to the employees covered therein. a part time teacher, unfortunately, is not covered by the said scheme and, therefore, not entitled. retirement benefit; differentiation between full time teachers and part-time lecturers government resolution providing for retrial benefits to full-time teaching staff part-time lecturer were not entitled to said benefit held, it is true that the pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer. however, the right of pension is always subject to the rules. it is not inherent in the employment. though pension is a payment for a past service rendered and it is a social welfare measure, but it is well settled that an employee is not entitled to pension de hors the rules. in the instant case the government resolution dated 21.7.1983 held that the said pension scheme is only applicable to the employees covered therein. a part time teacher, unfortunately, is not covered by the said scheme and, therefore, not entitled. - 3. the learned single judge held, and in our opinion, rightly that evidence of dudhnath kanojia as not at all reliable. the appellant is directed to comply with this..........at a pressman with the respondent-company from 1976 and he was getting weekly wages and he had worked in the company for 8 to 9 years and that he had resigned and had gone to his native place. he came in the year 1986 and accepted the work on contract basis to press the new ready-made garments manufactured by the company.3. the learned single judge held, and in our opinion, rightly that evidence of dudhnath kanojia as not at all reliable. he has admitted that there was no written contract between company and himself as a contractor. he has admitted that he had no licence under the contract labour (regulation and abolition) act. he has admitted that so-called register produced by him to show that respondent was in his employment did not bear the name or stamp of kamlesh ironing. before the labour court, the respondent company did not even whisper in its written statement that it had given work of ironing to kamlesh ironing. it did not say that there was any relationship as principal and contractor between the respondent company and kamlesh ironing. it did not even claim that kamlesh ironing was its contractor. the proprietor of the company had not entered into witness box. instead a time-keeper was examined. the learned judge has also taken note of the fact that the workman addressed letters to the company claiming reinstatement with full back wages on the basis that he was illegally terminated from the employment of the respondent- company. there was no reply to the said letters addressed by the workman.4. in the above circumstances, the learned judge was right in coming to the conclusion that the relationship of employer and employee is proved and granted reinstatement with full back wages.5. appeal is dismissed. the appellant is directed to comply with this order as well as order of learned judge, within a period of four weeks. parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by associate of this court.