SAMISHTA DUBE Vs. CITY BOARD ETAWAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted:

(2.) The appellant who holds a post-graduate degree was appointed as a typist/clerk on 15-12-1987 by the City Board, Etawah, respondent in this appeal. Her services were terminated on 12-4-1988. The appellant raised an industrial dispute and the same was referred to the Labour Court by the State of U.P. under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the 'Act') on 7-9-1991. The Labour Court held that the termination of the appellant's appointment w.e.f. 12-4-1988 could not be termed as invalid but held that, even so, the principle of "last come, first go" applied even in the case of those employed on daily wages and, therefore, passed an award to the effect that in case workmen junior to the appellant were retained, the appellant must be considered for regularisation by re-appointment on the basis of her seniority. This award was passed on 28-1-1993.

(3.) The respondent filed Writ Petition No. 15674 of 1994 in the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court held that the Municipal Board discharged sovereign functions and that the appellant was employed as a clerk/stenographer in the administrative office of the Nagar Palika and though "some activity" of the Municipal Board might amount to an "industry", there was nothing to show that the appellant was employed in connection with any activity that might amount to an 'industry'. The High Court also held that the appellant could go before the Services Tribunal. The High Court also observed that the appellant had worked only for 3 months and 27 days and her employment had come to an end by virtue of the condition of her appointment. The High Court was of the view that the Labour Court rightly held that the termination was not invalid but that its direction that the appellant should be appointed if any of her juniors were working, was unjustified when there was no finding as to discrimination. It was also held that the question of junior or senior hardly arose in the case of daily-wage appointments. The appointment as an employee in the Municipal Board was regulated by Rules and Regulations and appellant was "admittedly" not appointed to any regular post in accordance with the procedure provided. The High Court, therefore, held that the direction issued for appointment of the appellant in case juniors were continued was not legally justified and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. On these grounds, the writ petition of the respondent was allowed and the award was set aside.