KANTILAL BHOVANBHAI BUTANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a workman, challenges the decision of the appropriate Government refusing to refer the industrial dispute and prays a direction to refer the dispute to the appropriate forum under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act').

(2.) The .relevant facts can be summarised as follows : The petitioner was temporarily employed for 178 days to work on the post of Branch Post Master, Banduri from January, 1990 to December, 1995 when the regular incumbent was not available. In 1994 when the post of Branch Post Master had fallen vacant and his name was recommended by the employment exchange to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Junagadh, the Superintendent of Post Offices required the petitioner to apply in the prescribed form with necessary certificates for the post. The petitioner accordingly complied. Out of the applications received, the Department short-listed the candidates for interviews. The petitioner was called for the interview and on being selected, was posted as the Branch Post Master, Banduri in place of one Smt. D. M. Pandya from 20-12-1995. However, the Superintendent of Post Offices, by his memo dated 18-1-1996, imposed a stipulation that as Smt. D. M. Pandya had been put "off duty" pending finalisation of disciplinary proceedings and judicial proceedings against her, the need had arisen and the provisional appointment to the post would last till the aforesaid proceedings were disposed of and she had exhausted all channels of departmental and judicial appeals and petition etc. It was also stipulated in the memo that in case it was finally decided not to take Smt. D. M. Pandya back into service, the appointment of the petitioner would continue till regular appointment was made and that me petitioner should clearly understand that if ever it was decided to reinstate Smt. D. M. Pandya in service, his provisional appointment would be terminated without notice and also at any time before that event without assigning any reason. The petitioner was required to sign the duplicate copy of the memo in token of having accepted the conditions. According to the petitioner, during the period of his satisfactory service, some formalities were initiated for regularisation of his service, but by the order dated 9-12-1996, he was asked to hand over the charge of his post to Smt. D. M. Pandya who came to be reinstated in service by the D.P.S., Rajkot. Thereafter, order terminating the services of the petitioner was passed on 17-12-1996. According to the petitioner, Smt. D. M. Pandya continued to remain absent time and again and ultimately resigned from service on 18-10-1997. Thereafter, without considering the claim and entitlement of the petitioner, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Junagadh appointed one Dipak M. Gondalia, who is the son of a Sub-post Master at the nearby Malia-Hatina Post Office. On 5-11-1997, the name of the petitioner was again recommended by the employment exchange for the post of Branch Post Master at Banduri and pursuant to it, he was called for interview. However, without the petitioner being asked a single question at the interview, a person with lower educational qualification and without any relevant experience came to be appointed on extraneous consideration, according to the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, whose conciliation proceedings ended in failure. The failure report forwarded by the Conciliation Officer took note of the stipulations relating to the appointment of the petitioner and conveyed that the demands of the workman for reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages was not considered by the management. Referring to the failure report dated 28-12-1998, the impugned order of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, refusing to refer the dispute was communicated by letter dated 16-2-1999, the material part of which reads as under :