CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT Vs. RAMALIGU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat and the District Adult Officer have jointly presented this petition calling in question the award dated 31.3.2011 in I.I.D. No. 43/2008 of the Labour Court, Mysore directing reinstatement of the respondent into the post last held by him without regularization and reserving liberty to the petitioner to retrench the workman after complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short 'ID Act' and further pay 40% of the backwages from 1.4.2008, the date of removal from service. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the award impugned, there is no more dispute that the respondent was engaged as a Jeep driver from 1996 upto February, 2008 under Saksharavani scheme promulgated by the Central Government and paid Rs. 1,200/ - p.m. initially and there afterwards at the rate of Rs. 3,000/ - p.m. It is also a matter of fact that the respondent -workman was not appointed under a regular recruitment process against a substantive post in the Zilla Panchayat. It is also not in dispute that the respondent -workman worked continuously for a period of more than 240 days in twelve calendar months immediately preceding his termination. Yet again, fact not in dispute is that the termination is not preceded by compliance with Section 25 -F of the 'ID Act'.

(2.) IT is no doubt true that the scheme in question does not establish the 1st petitioner - Zilla Panchayat as an Industry falling within the definition of the said term under Section 2(j) of the 'ID Act'. Regard being had to the fact that there is no dispute that the respondent discharged duty as a driver from 1996 to 2008, the Labour Court concluded that the workman served for more than 240 days continuously in a period of twelve calendar months prior to the termination, during February 2008. Hence the Labour Court held that termination was violative of Section 25 -F of the 'ID Act' entitling the respondent to reinstatement with 40% back wages.

(3.) BE that as it may, it is not disputed that the respondent -workman did serve the petitioner for more than 12 years, though intermittently. In that view of the matter, ends of justice would be met by directing payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement, backwages, continuity of service and consequential benefits as awarded by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In almost similar though not identical circumstances in W.P. No. 45180/12 DD 10.9.2013 and W.P. 18668/13 DD 12.9.2013, this Court directed payment of compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/ - in lieu of reinstatement and further consequential benefits to daily wage employees of the Forest Department. In the result, petition is accordingly disposed of. The award of the Labour Court is modified entitling the respondent -workman to Rs. 1,25,000/ - as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and other consequential benefits.