ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. J MAHADEVAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents herein claimed that they were appointed by the Assistant Executive engineer, Zilla Panchayat Engineering subdivision, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore, (Appellant herein) on 1/06/1994 and August 11, 1995 respectively on daily wage basis and that their services were terminated on 30/08/1996 without complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('act' for short ). A dispute was raised and the State government referred the following disputes to the Labour Court, Mysore, under Section 10 (l) (c)oftheact. (i) Whether the Assistant Executive Engineer, engineering Sub- Division, Zilla Panchayat, nanjangud, is justified in retrenching the service of J. Mahadevaiah and D. P. Babu with effect from 30/08/1996? (ii) To what relief the workmen are entitled to? the said reference was registered as Ref. No. 154 of 1998 on the file of the Labour Court, mysore. In the said reference, the respondents were arrayed as I party and the appellant as II party. The respondents filed a claim statement praying for reinstatement with back wages. The appellant filed a counter contending that the reference was liable to be rejected on the following grounds: (1) that he had not appointed the respondents on daily wage basis; (ii) that the respondents had not worked for 240 days or more in a year as claimed; and (iii) that the appellant cannot be considered as an "industry".

(2.) ON behalf of the respondents, first respondent was examined as W. W. 1 and ex. Wl and W45 were marked. On behalf of the appellant, no evidence was let in though matter was adjourned for his evidence from 6/10/2000 till 14/05/2001. Therefore,: the Labour Court proceeded on the basis that the appellant has forfeited his rights to lead evidence and posted the matter for arguments. At that stage, the appellant filed an application seeking permission to lead evidence. That application was allowed. But, the appellant again did not let in evidence. Therefore, the labour Court noted that the appellant had no evidence and heard arguments and passed an award dated February 19, 2002 allowing the reference in part. It set aside the termination of service of the respondents and directed the appellant to reinstate the respondents in the position in which they were working when their services were terminated, with 50 per cent of back wages from 20/03/1999 till the date of reinstatement with continuity of service.

(3.) THE appellant challenged the said award in Writ Petition Nos. 23210-23211 of 2002 reiterating the contentions urged before the labour Court and in addition, contending that they should be given adequate opportunity to let in evidence. Learned single Judge by an order dated June 20, 2002 dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the Labour Court had given sufficient opportunity and therefore, no ground was made out to interfere with the order of the Labour Court. That order is challenged by the appellant in this appeal.