EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. JAYSUKHBHAI DHIRUBHAI KAKADIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Special Civil Application impugns judgment and award dtd. 3/10/2007 passed by learned Labour Court, Amreli in Reference (LCA) No.34 of 2003 whereby the learned Labour Court has directed the reinstatement of the respondent workman with continuity in service and awarded 25% backwages and perks of Rs.1500.00.

(2.) The brief facts leading to filing of the present Special Civil Application are as follows:-

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. B. T. Rao appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the learned Labour Court has committed an error apparent on the face of the record. He has submitted that the learned Labour Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent workman was not appointed on a permanent, clear vacant and sanctioned post and the petitioner Board follows the recruitment rules for appointment of Class-IV employees also. It is further submitted that the appointment of the respondent workman was purely temporary and ad-hoc on project basis and therefore, there was no question of continuing the respondent permanently once the said project is over. It is also submitted that the documentary evidence produced by the petitioners was not considered by the learned Labour Court, which clearly shows that the respondent workman had not completed 240 days in a calendar year and that he was engaged to work as and when the need arose. It is submitted that the learned Labour Court has also not taken into consideration the vouchers produced by the petitioners with respect to the payment that had been made to the workman. The statement for the period from 1/11/2000 to 31/7/2001 had been produced before the learned Labour Court which has not been properly considered while adjudicating the matter. It is further submitted that there is no permanent work with the petitioners now as the work of maintaining the pipeline had been given on contract basis by the petitioners. If the petitioners employ any particular person, then he cannot be said to be the employee of the petitioners. Further, merely because the respondent workman has completed 240 days, he does not get vested right to get appointment with the petitioner Board. It is further submitted that there is no question of violation of Sec. 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act as alleged since the respondent workman has admitted that he was not in service of the Board since 31/7/2001. It is further submitted that the respondent workman had approached the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner in the year 2003 i. e. after two years. It is submitted that the learned Labour Curt has also failed to appreciate the fact that the project work is now complete and division and sub-division have been closed down and therefore, there is no question of reinstatement. It is submitted that there is no permanent establishment with the petitioners which is a statutory Board and is wholly owned by the Government of Gujarat and undertakes the projects of public utility. As and when the work is completed, the project is entrusted to the local authority for the purpose of running and maintaining the same and temporary establishment is discontinued. Thus, the workmen like the present respondent who are engaged on project to project basis, are discontinued after the project work is over and they cannot claim any continuity in service. It is further submitted that the workman has not been employed after following the recruitment rules framed by the petitioners and therefore, he cannot claim as a matter of right his reinstatement on the basis that he has completed 240 days. In support of his case, learned advocate Mr. Rao has relied upon the following judgments :-