RAMESH Vs. HYDERABAD KARNATAKA EDUCATION SOCIETY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner -workman has filed this petition seeking to quash the award of the Labour Court in Ref. No. 45/2011 directing the employer to reinstate without continuity of service and without backwages.

(2.) It is submission of the petitioner that the Labour Court has committed an error in not ordering the continuity of service and back -wages. Though it has been proved by the material evidence that he has been appointed by the first respondent and working in PPP Centre of the second respondent and the first respondent has declared the probationary period as satisfactory, which shows his appointment was terminated not with regard to Government scheme, these materials have not been considered by the Labour Court. He referred appointment order at Annexure -B and declaration of probationary at Annexure -C. The evidence of W.W. 1 is available in the petition at paragraph 21, 22, 23 in which it has been referred persons along with the petitioner have been appointed pursuant to their original appointment in the year 1997. The non -continuation made on 05.10.2007 has been challenged before the Labour Court. The Labour Court directed reinstatement but denied the back wages and continuity of service. Therefore, the learned counsel prays for quashing the Labour Court order in respect thereof and direct the first respondent to provide continuity of service with back -wages.

(3.) Learned counsel for the first respondent submitted to dismiss this petition. The Labour Court should have dismissed the claim petition primarily on the ground of delay since the claim petition was not filed within six months as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act. He was continued or terminated on 05.10.2007 whereas he had approached the Labour Court on 07.05.2011. Hence, the award of the Labour Court is an error in law and also on jurisdiction. The appointment of the petitioner along with others by the Government of India called PPT center and the salary was paid by the Government of India. Since the scheme itself has been lapsed the petitioner is discontinuity. Notwithstanding the fact, he had approached the Labour Court whereby he was reinstated as in case of others.