EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. ASHOKBHAI J DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. By filing this petition, which is in the nature of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Presiding Judge, Labour Court, Nadiad in Reference (LCN) No.155 of 1992.

(2.) The respondent-workman had raised an industrial dispute, challenging the decision of the petitioner-Management in not continuing him in service as a daily rated driver. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Nadiad and it was numbered as Reference (LCN) No.155 of 1992. The respondent was appointed as a daily rated driver from 1.11.1989. It is his case that he was serving sincerely and satisfactorily, on a daily wage of Rs.37.60, and that he had served continuously upto 1.5.1991, i.e. the date on which he was relieved from services. According to him, his services were illegally terminated with effect from 1.5.1991 and he was told that his services were no longer required. It is also his case that after terminating his services, the petitioner-Department appointed someone else in the aforesaid post of Driver. Under the circumstances, a demand was raised by the concerned workman to the effect that he may be reinstated in service, with continuity of service and such other benefits.

(3.) The demand of the workman was resisted by the petitioner-Department on the ground that the petitioner-institution cannot be said to be an 'Industry', within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, as the Institution is under the control of the Irrigation Department of Sardar Sarovar Narmada Irrigation Scheme. It is further the stand of the Management that the concerned workman was not relieved, but since he was appointed as a casual driver, as and when need of a driver arose, he was asked to perform his duty. It is also the case of the Department that the workman was not recruited as per the Rules and for some intervening days, he was asked to give his services till regular driver was recruited by the Department. On the above and such other grounds, the demand was resisted by the petitioner-Department.