PORT OFFICER Vs. ATULBHAI PRABHULAL JANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Heard Ms.Sejal K. Mandavia, learned advocate for petitioner and also Mr.A.M.Dagali, learned advocate for respondent workman on caveat. Rule. Mr.A.M.Dagali, learned advocate waives formal service of Rule on behalf of the respondent workman.

(2.) . The petitioner - Port Officer of Gujarat Maritime Board has challenged the award passed by the labour court, Rajkot in Reference No.273 / 1998 dated 28th March, 2001, wherein the labour court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 25 % backwages of the interim period. Learned advocate Ms. Mandavia on behalf of the petitioner Board has submitted that initially the respondent workman was appointed in the scale as daily rated employee for fixed period with effect from 27/08/1996 for a period of three months. Thereafter, again he was appointed by order dated 23/10/1996 on the same terms. Thereafter on 19/12/1996 for a period of six months on the same terms and again on 8/07/1997 for period of six months on the same terms. Thereafter, on 22nd December, 1997 again for a period of three months on the same terms. Again the workman was appointed on 23rd March, 1998 for period of two months and ultimately, his services came to be terminated by order dated 20th May, 1998. Learned advocate Ms.Mandavia has submitted that services of the workman came to be terminated by the petitioner by afflux of time as periodical appointments were given to the respondent workman. Therefore, there was no need to comply the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D.Act, 1947. However, she submits that the requirement of this Section has been fully complied with by the petitioner by paying notice pay and compensation to the respondent workman. She also submits that the respondent workman was not appointed on permanent post but he was daily rated appointed by the petitioner on periodical basis and therefore, the workman has no right to remain on the post in question and as per the terms of the contract, his services automatically terminated. Therefore, the labour court has committed error in granting reinstatement to the respondent workman with 25 % backwages. She also submits that though it is mentioned in the order of termination that his services has been terminated for the misconduct dated 20th May, 1998 but as he was not permanent employee of the Mari Time Board, there was no need to comply the principles of natural justice and to follow the regular procedure of departmental inquiry. Except the contentions referred above, no other submission is made by learned advocate Ms.Mandavia on behalf of the petitioner Board.

(3.) . Learned advocate Mr.A.M.Dagali on behalf of the respondent workman has submitted that the respondent workman remained in service of the petitioner Board with effect from 27/08/1996 and he was continued in service upto 20/05/1998. Therefore, the workman had completed 240 days continuous service though it was periodical appointments. It is further submitted that services of the workman was continuous and no break was given in between. Mr.Dagali also submitted that services of the respondent workman has not been terminated as simpliciter termination but it was based on misconduct which was mentioned in the order itself which required to follow principles of natural justice or to hold departmental inquiry before terminating the services of the respondent workman. It is further submitted that undisputedly departmental inquiry was not held and no reasonable opportunity was given to the respondent workman nor it was the case of the petitioner Board. Therefore, the labour court has rightly appreciated these aspects and granted reinstatement with 25 % backwages of the interim period. It is also submission that the labour court has committed error in not granting full backwages on the ground of presumption of gainful employment. Therefore, Mr.Dagali has submitted that any temporary employee and / or casual employee if he remained absent or any misconduct is alleged or his services terminated due to misconduct or based upon the misconduct, then such employee is entitled to reasonable opportunity according to the principles of natural justice which has not been followed in case of the respondent workman and therefore, the order of termination has been rightly set aside by the labour court. Therefore, the labour court has committed no error while passing the award and the same does not call for any interference of this Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution.