PARSHOTTAMBHAI MOTIBHAI SOLANKI Vs. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE EMGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the judgement and award dated 19.02.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Anand in Reference ( LCA) No. 707 of 1992 ( Old No. 240 of 1990) whereby the reference of the petitioner came to be rejected.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed and working as a daily rated Tubewell Operator with the respondent Corporation since 10.01.1981. The respondent Corporation stopped to assign work with effect from 11.11.1981 saying that the petitioner workman will be called for work after sometime. Thereafter, the petitioner was going regularly to inquire about work and ultimately on 05.05.1988, the respondent Corporation again appointed the petitioner workman as a Tubewell Operator. On 26.07.1988, the petitioner was served with a notice levelling charges about unauthorized absent from service and terminated the services of the petitioner. On 04.04.1989, the respondentCorporation without giving any notice, notice pay and without following the due process of law, terminated the services of the petitioner. The respondent therefore, raised dispute before the Labour Court, Anand which culminated into aforesaid reference. The Labour Court, after adjudicating, rejected the reference of the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

(3.) LEARNED advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondent did not produce the relevant material for all the months of the year 1988. The respondent also did not produce the work register and the extracts for the months of January 1988, August 1988, September 1988, October 1988, November 1988 and December 1988. He submitted that the petitioner had worked for 240 days, there is breach of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.