JAMNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. RAJUBHAI HARSHIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner- Jamnagar Municipal Corporation is before this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the judgment and award dated 23.04.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar in Reference (LCJ) No. 255 of 1996, with the following prayers:

(2.) The brief facts leading to the present petition are as follows:

(3.) This Court has heard learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for the petitioner Municipal Corporation, who has urged along the line of the memo of the petition. It is his emphatic submission that the respondent has not worked for 240 days. He was engaged on ad-hoc and daily wage basis for temporary period. He has not been engaged regularly or on continuous basis. It is also denied that the juniors have worked continuously in the service and instead of the respondent, the others had been hired by the petitioner Corporation. He has further urged that the respondent since had not been engaged on permanent basis, in absence of any sanctioned set-up, the Court could not had directed the reinstatement with continuity of service. Moreover, in absence of the working of 240 days, the infraction of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) is contrary to law. The termination would not amount to retrenchment, and therefore, the Court's findings are contrary to the statutory provision and are erroneous and deserves to be quashed.