CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYATH, MANDYA - 571 401 AND ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYATH RAJ ENGINEERING SUB-DN., (EARLIER KNOWN AS ZILLA PANCHAYAT ENGINEERING SUB-DN. NAGAMANGALA MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432 Vs. SRINIVASA, S/O CHIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Appeal No. 357/2010 is filed by the workman being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 30027/2009 dated 20.10.2009, wherein the learned single Judge of this Court has declined to interfere with the order and award passed by the Labour Court, Mysore, in I.I.D. No. 219/1999 dated 29.01.2009 and dismissed the writ petition. Against the very same order and award of the Labour Court dated 29.01.2009, respondents 2 and 3 in W.P. No. 30027/2009 - Zilla Panchayat have filed W.P. No. 36394/2009. The material facts leading up to this appeal and writ petition are as follows: - 1.1 The first party before the Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') was appointed as a driver on daily wages basis on 24.09.1995 in the respondent - Zilla Panchayat. He served the respondents for a period of three years four months as a Driver. Since his services were terminated, he raised a dispute under Section 10(4 -A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking for reinstatement, continuity of service, full backwages and consequential benefits, which was registered in IID No. 219/1999 on the file of the Labour Court, Mysore. The Labour Court, after considering the contentions of the authorized representative of the workman and the learned counsel for the respondent, by order and award dated 29.01.2009, held that the workman had put in more than 240 days of service as he was working as Driver from 24.09.1995 to 01.06.1999 i.e., nearly for three years four months and 11 days and his termination without complying with the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act is erroneous and liable to be set aside. However, having regard to the fact that the workman was not appointed in regular recruitment, the Labour Court thought it fit to hold that the workman should be awarded lump sum compensation of s.2,00,000/ - (Rupees Two Lakhs only) in lieu of reinstatement, payment of backwages and consequential benefits. Accordingly, the Labour Court allowed the petition in part directing the second party -Zilla Panchayat to pay to the workman the said compensation within two months from the date of the order while holding that the workman is not entitled for reinstatement or any other benefit. Being aggrieved by the said order and award passed by the Labour Court, writ petition No. 30027 of 2009 was filed by the workman. 1.2 The learned single Judge, after considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and the material on record, by order dated 20.10.2009, held that since the petitioner - workman had completed 240 days of continuous service in a year, his termination without payment of retrenchment compensation is violative of Section 25 -F of the Act and the Labour Court was justified in awarding lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/ - to the workman and accordingly, rejected the petition - W.P. No. 30027/2009 as devoid of merit. Being aggrieved by the said order, the workman has preferred Writ Appeal No. 357/2010. 1.3 W.P. No. 36394/2009 is filed by the respondent before the Labour Court Mysore, in IID No.219/1999 being aggrieved by the same order and award dated 29.01.2009 contending that termination of the workman was justified and the Labour Court was not justified in setting aside the order terminating the services of the workman and in awarding compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/ - to the workman.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A. No. 357/2010, who is respondent in W.P. No. 36394/2009 and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 in W.A. No. 357/2010 and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 in the said writ appeal, who are petitioners in W.P. No. 36394/2009.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 in W.A. No. 357/2010 - Zilla Panchayat (petitioners in W.P. No. 36394/2009) submitted that the order passed by the Labour Court dated 29.01.2009 is justified and it was not necessary for the respondent - Zilla Panchayat to comply with the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act and the workman was not entitled to reinstatement or compensation.