BRAHMBHATT RAJESHKUMAR JAQSUBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Upon request of the State to hear the main petition, the main petition was taken up for final hearing and Civil Application is dismissed as not surviving.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a part time daily wager sweeper-cum-water bearer at the Library (respondent No.4) working under respondent No.3. After name of the petitioner being forwarded by the Employment Exchange and he being called for personal interview, he was selected and appointed by order dated 16.02.2002 as temporary and part time employee for six hours a day and on monthly wages of Rs.1,350/=. Appointment was clearly for the fixed period upto 31.03.2002 and on ad-hoc basis. Thereafter, his employment was continued by issuing fresh orders from time to time upto the date of termination on 29.10.2005 when his last appointment for the period from 01.10.2005 to 29.10.2005 came to an end. The order terminating service of the petitioner was issued admittedly on account of the Circular dated 14.10.2005 of respondent No.2, the Director- Department of Libraries which insisted that temporary employees employed in Class IV on daily wage basis should not be continued after issuing order for appointment for 29 days only.

(3.) Thus, no reason whatsoever, is mentioned in the impugned order terminating the service of the petitioner and it is not the case of the respondent that any procedure is followed in terminating the service, even as the aforesaid Circular dated 14.10.2005 clearly required that requisite procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 should be followed in cases when employees employed on daily wage basis had worked for longer periods. Thus, in view of the undisputed fact that petitioner has continued in service from February 2002 to October 2005, the service of the petitioner was required to be terminated, if it had to be terminated, after following the procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act. That having admittedly, not been done, the order of termination was liable to be set aside only account of violation of the respondent's own Circular and guidelines.