RANJITSINH BHIKUBHAI CHAVDA Vs. CHAIRMAN,GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the judgement and award dated 26.10.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference ( L.C.A.) No. 1976 of 1998 wherein the reference preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed in the respondentBoard after following due procedure by appointment order dated 22.1.1997 as workcharge Clerk in pay scale of Rs. 9501500 and other available benefits in this payscale for a period of 29 days from the day of resuming duties. The petitioner has performed his duties continuously for 375 days from 24.1.1997 to 16.2.1998 by issuing appointment orders on the same pay scale from the period 22.1.1997 to 16.2.1998. The services of the petitioner was terminated after 16.2.1998 without any prior notice or without giving any reason or without following any procedure required under the law. The petitioner therefore, raised industrial dispute which came to be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court after adjudicating, rejected the reference of the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

(3.) LEARNED advocate appearing for the petitioner further contended that labour Court erred while interpreting the Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and holding that the termination of the petitioner's service can not be considered as retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the I.D.Act. She further contended that the case of the petitioner does not fall under the exception provided in Section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D.Act as the appointment orders issued by the respondent Board are just to give artificial brake and petitioner has actually and continuously worked even after expiry of such period of 29 days or 20 days or 3 months shown in the appointment orders.