HITENDRA VRAJLAL TIRVEDI Vs. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) to 2. xxx xxx xxx

(2.) The facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioner was engaged by the respondent No.3 on 2 -7 -1996 for collection of house -tax at a fixed salary of Rs. 1,000/ - per month, initially for a period of 3 months. The said appointment continued from time to time and the petitioner continued to discharge the said duties upto 1 -4 -1997, when his services came to be terminated. The petitioner approached the respondent No.3 by writing a letter dated 29 -12 -2002 and demanded that he be reinstated in service, failing which he will approach the Deputy Labour Commissioner. In his letter dated 29 -12 -2002, the petitioner had also stated that he was approaching personally from time to time and he was told that he will be reinstated in service. The petitioner had also stated that the action of termination of his services is illegal; that he had worked for more than 240 days. He has also stated that the work which he was doing continues even today and is being done by new persons who were engaged after the services of the petitioner were terminated.

(3.) The petitioner thereafter appears to have approached the Deputy Labour Commissioner, as can be seen from the copy of approach letter produced at page No. 16 of the petition. In the said letter, the petitioner has inter alia stated that after his services were terminated, the petitioner used to personally visit the office of the respondent No. 3 time and again and he was informed by the officers of the respondent No. 3 that the petitioner should wait for some time and that he would be taken back in service. Even after the respondent No. 3 was converted into a Municipality, the petitioner had met the officers and he was told that he should not file a case, and as new persons are required, petitioner will be engaged soon. The petitioner, has therefore, stated that on account of the above circumstances beyond his control there has been delay in raising the dispute, which may be condoned. The respondent No. 1, however, by his impugned communication dated 21 -5 -2003 was pleased to reject the said application on the ground that there has been a delay of six years which is not required to be condoned.