JASDAN MUNICIPALITY Vs. KANTIBHAI BACHUBHAI THUMMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner municipality has brought under challenge award dated 2.9.2011 passed by Labour Court Rajkot in reference (LCR) No. 187 of 2002 whereby the Labour Court has directed the petitioner-municipality to reinstate the respondent-workman on his original post. The Labour Court has however declined to award any backwages. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said direction to reinstate the respondent. Hence present petition.

(2.) The petitioner-employer resisted the reference by filing written statement, claiming, inter alia that the respondent was engaged on contract basis and that he was working as contractor and was not workman of the municipality and was never engaged as a workman and that therefore there was no requirement or obligation to follow any procedure prescribed by the Act and/or to comply any conditions and requirements under the Act. It was also claimed that the contract with the respondent was not renewed after 28.2.2002 and that therefore the allegation about breach of sections 25F or 25G or 25H are not sustainable and the relief prayed for by the respondent should not be granted.

(3.) Both the parties placed oral and documentary evidence on record and the learned Labour Court, upon considering the documents placed on record as well as the oral evidence came to the conclusion that it was established that the respondent was engaged by and he was in the employment of the petitioner and that he had worked w.e.f. 19.5.2000 until 28.2.2002 and that therefore his employment with the petitioner was continuous under section 25B of the Act. The Labour Court came to the conclusion, upon examination of the documents (at exhibit 19 to exhibit 37) that the respondent was not engaged for any particular project and/or that he was not attached to any specific project only. The learned Labour Court, however did not believe the allegation about breach of section 25G. Similarly, the Labour Court also did not accept the allegation that petitioner had committed breach of section 25H, because the persons who were engaged for performing the duties which the respondent was performing before his termination were the employees of municipality who were already employed in octrai department but were declared surplus after abolition of octroi.