RAMESHBHAI MANUBIA RATHOD Vs. JOINT AGRICULTURAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By of this petitions, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate Writ to quash and set aside judgment and award dated 15.02.2002 passed by the Labour Court, Valsad in Reference (LCV) No.602 of 1996 and Reference (LCV) No.603 of 1996, wherein the Labour Court rejected the Reference on the ground that daily wagers and contingency workman are not workmen.

(2.) The petitioners came to be appointed in the office of respondent. The petitioners were appointed on permanent post. However, they were designated as daily wager. After more than three years of continuous services, the petitioners came to be terminated. The petitioners are not paid any compensation or amount at the time of termination of their service. The petitioners represented their case time and again before the respondent, but there was no response from the respondent. The petitioners thereafter raised dispute before the Conciliation Officer of Labour. The dispute came to be referred to the Labour Court, Valsad by way of Reference (LCV) No.602 and 603 of 1996. The petitioners filed statement of their claim before the Labour Court. The main contention of the respondent was that the petitioners were not required in service since the office of the respondent was closed and it was shifted to Ahmedabad. After considering documentary evidence, Labour Court, Valsad rejected the Reference. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 15.02.2002 passed by the Labour Court, Valsad in Reference (LCV) No.602 and 603 of 1996, the petitioner has preferred present petition.

(3.) Heard Mr.Dave, learned Advocate for the petitioners. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that Labour Court has passed the award against principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that Labour Court ought to have appreciated the fact that it is admitted position on record that the petitioners have worked continuously for more than 3 years. It is also submitted that Labour Court ought to have appreciated that if the workman has worked continuously for more than three years or the workman has worked for more than 240 days in a year, therefore, he is entitled to retrenchment compensation. It is further submitted that even in a case of daily wager, contingent paid employee etc. the procedure as prescribed under section 25F and 25G is required to be followed. It is submitted that when new persons have been employed and when junior persons have been employed and they are retained by the respondent, the petitioners are entitled to be reinstated in service with full backwages.