SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT PANCHAYAT Vs. DAHYABHAI AMARSINH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-workman claimed to be in service of the appellant-Panchayat for more than 10 years as a daily wager @Rs.10 per day. On 15.7.1985 by oral order his services were terminated by the Panchayat without issuing any notice or paying retrenchment amount. After terminating his services in the same section where he was serving the Panchayat employed new employees, who were in service, but he was not called. Therefore, after a period of almost 7 years i.e. on 1.6.1992 demand notice was served by him to the Panchayat, which was not at all replied. He, therefore, approached the Labour Commissioner, who by his order dated 20.9.1992 made a reference (LCS) No.273 of 1992 before the Labour Court for deciding the industrial dispute between the parties. The appellant-Panchayat filed reply Ex.11 before the Labour Court contending that the workman on his own stopped coming to work. It is further contended that there is a delay of 7 years in making reference, therefore, only on this ground of delay, the reference was required to be dismissed. It is further contended that the applicant was doing miscellaneous work as and when there was work he was called, therefore, on his own he stopped coming to the work. Thus, therefore, under the provisions of Section 2(m)(bb) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"), the workman is not entitled for reinstatement in service. It is also contended that the workman had worked in fact in all for 114 days in the year 1982, 63 days in 1983, 124 days in 1984 and only 64 days in 1985. Thus, in one calender year he has not worked for 240 days, therefore, there is no question of reinstating him in service as the Panchayat had not committed any breach of Section 25-F, G and H of the Act.

(2.) By way of the Ex.4, the workman applied for production of muster roll, salary registers from 1976 to 1986 and seniority list of the workman employed by the Panchayat. The Panchayat had not filed any reply nor had produced any documentary evidence as demanded by the workman before the Labour Court.

(3.) Before the Labour Court the workman examined himself at Ex.15. In his oral evidence he has stated that he was discharging his duties as daily wager employee for 10 years at the monthly salary of Rs.470/=, but on 15.7.1985 his services were terminated by an oral order without issuing any notice or paying any retrenchment compensation. After terminating his service, his junior labourer, Dharamsinh Badal is continuing in service. In his cross-examination he has stated that he was working at Leelapur Tanki road along with 10 other workmen and digging land. Nothing further was put to him in cross-examination. On behalf of the appellant-Panchayat, Deputy Executive Engineer, Mr.Vinod Mishra at Ex.17 was examined. He had produced the muster roll at Ex.10 to show that the workman had worked for 114 days in 1982, 64 days in 1983 and after 1985 he stopped coming to work. He has further stated in his oral evidence that as and when work was there he was called for the work and after the work was over he was relieved from the work and the work of the workman was not of permanent nature and no new person was recruited after his services were terminated. He had admitted in his cross-examination that when the workman was removed from service, seniority list of daily wager was not maintained. He has further admitted in his cross-examination that even today working of daily wagers is continued and they are given work for 26 days in a month.