PUNJABHAI JETHABHAI Vs. DY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in all these eight petitions are second party workmen in Irrigation Department. The reference filed by them which came to be consolidated at their request and which culminated into award dated 30/5/2000, where under their references came to be dismissed with no order as to costs. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this order in award where under consolidated references came to be dismissed, the present eight petitions have been preferred by the workmen inter alia challenging the said award and findings by way of these petitions filed under Article 226 and also under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As these matters have common challenge on common grounds, on almost common facts and they are always being listed together, same are being disposed of by this common judgment & order.

(2.) The facts in brief leading to filing these petitions as could be culled out from the memo of the petitions and record available before this Court could be set out as under in order to appreciate the controversy involved in these matters.

(3.) The petitioners herein / workmen were constrained to raise industrial dispute as despite their long services, as per their own say, the respondent employer brought an abrupt end to their services which was viewed as illegal exercise of power without following due procedure of law, including that of provision of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act (herein after referred to as 'I.D. Act' for short). These disputes were referred to the competent court wherein they were numbered as Reference (LCJ) No. 55/96, 59/96 to 63/96, 303/95 and 304/95. The references were consolidated as the workmen filed purshish exhibit-7 requesting the concerned Court for consolidation of all the references as they involve common question of facts and law. Accordingly all the references were consolidated and ultimately they culminated into order of Labour Court, Junagadh dated 30/5/2000, where under the Court after recording its findings qua workmen not completing 240 days and workmen failed in establishing retention of their juniors and/or engagement of juniors, decided the references against the workmen. Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with this award these petitions have been preferred on the facts & grounds mentioned there under.