CHANASMA TALUKA PANCHAYAT Vs. HARIBHAI DHANJIBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Chansama Taluka Panchayat has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and award dated 8.4.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kalol passed in Reference (LCK) No. 266 of 1991 by which the Labour Court, Kalol has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent to his original post with 50% back wages.

(2.) That the respondent workman was appointed as a Operator initially by order dated 8/11.4.1988 on contract initially for a period of one month and on a fixed salary of Rs.460/- per month on a particular Tube Well. That thereafter the period of contract was extended from time to time and ultimately on closure of the particular Tube Well and even all of other 7 Tube Wells on which appointments were made by order dated 8/11.4.1988, the services of the respondent was put to an end and/ or discontinued. Thus, the respondent worked from 8th April, 1988 to 20th November 1990. That thereafter, respondent workman raised an industrial dispute challenging his termination and/ or discontinuation, which was referred to Labour Court, Kalol which was numbered as Reference (LCK) No.266 of 1991 and Labour Court, Kalol by impugned judgment and award dated 8.4.2002 partly allowed the said reference by directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman to his original post with 50% back wages by holding that the termination of the respondent workman is in breach of Sections 25 F and 25 B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by observing that other operators are continued and the seniority list has not been maintained and before terminating the services of the respondent neither any notice was given nor retrenchment compensation was made. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award declared by the Labour Court, Kalol, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the Labour Court has materially erred in directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman with 50% back wages. It is submitted that as such the the appointment of the respondent-workman was on contract basis and for a particular project / Tube Well and on closure of the Tube Well not only the respondent but other seven operator's service came to be discontinued and therefore it was a case of Section 2(oo) and 2(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, it is submitted that Labour Court has materially erred in holding that there is a breach of Section 25 F and 25 B of the Industrial Disputes Act and consequently has materially erred in passing the order of reinstatement. It is submitted that respondent was appointed not on regular establishment and was appointed on purely contract basis for a particular Tube Well and on closure of Tube Well the contract automatically came to an end, therefore, the services of the respondent-workman was discontinued. It is submitted that there was no original post available on which the respondent-workman can be reinstated. It is submitted that in any case the order of reinstatement deserves to be quashed and set aside.