SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER Vs. R CHHANABHAI NATHABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the matter was fully heard on 13th August, 2004, the same was adjourned from time to time for production of additional evidence.Today, such additional evidence was produced on record by the State Government.

(2.) The short facts of the case as they emerge from the record are that the respondent-workmen were employed as daily wage employees in the Irrigation Department. It is the say of the petitioner State that the services of the respondent-workmen were taken as per the requirement. It is also the say of the petitioner State that the respondent-workmen have not completed 240 days of service in a year. It is further the say of the petitioner that since the petitioner was engaged in the nature of project work, on completion of the project, the services of the respondent-workmen came to be terminated.

(3.) Mr. A.D. Oza learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner State has raised contentions that the Irrigation Department is not an "Industry" and that the respondent-workmen were employed for doing purely temporary work and their engagement was purely on ad hoc basis.