SH BHOPAL Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 14th January, 1999 passed by the Labour Court, wherein it was held that the petitioner workman failed to prove that his services have been terminated by the respondent/management illegally and unjustifiably and hence, he was held not entitled to any relief.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for disposing of the present petition are as follows. The petitioner workman joined the employment of the respondent, Municipal Corporation of Delhi in its Horticulture Department at Roshanara Garden with effect from May 1985 and was posted at the nursery as a daily rated casual muster roll worker. He was being paid wages as fixed and revised from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act. His services were terminated with effect from 9th April, 1986. He tendered a demand notice on the respondent/management in the year 1992, but no reply was received. After conciliation proceedings failed, matter was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. It has remained un-controverted on the Labour Court record that the petitioner workman had completed 240 days of continuous service as required under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The petitioner workman contended that the termination of his service was illegal since the mandatory provisions of Section 25F, 25G, 25H of the Act read with rules 76, 77 and 78 of the industrial Disputes Act (Central) Rules, 1957, were not complied with.

(3.) While coming to the conclusion that the petitioner workman had not been illegally terminated, the Learned Presiding Officer observed that a pre-requisite condition for the application of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act is that there should be retrenchment. Reliance was placed on the case of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi v. State of Bihar reported as 1997 IV AD S.C. 196, wherein the Hon"ble Supreme Court was considering the case of daily wage workmen, the petitioners therein, and held that since they were not appointed according to rules against any post and they were only appointed according to the need of the work, they had no right to the post and therefore their termination without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, was not illegal, as there was no retrenchment. Having placed reliance on the aforementioned case, the Labour Court held that disengagement or termination of daily rated, casual, muster roll worker namely Bhopal was not retrenchment and that the provisions of Section 25F, 25G and 25H were not applicable in the present case, and thus his services were not terminated illegally or unjustifiably by respondent/management.