MORBI MUNCIPALITY Vs. REJESH NARANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Advocate Ms.D.N.Nanavati appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Learned Advocate Mr.A.K.Clerk appearing on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) In this group of petitions, the petitioner Morbi Nagarpalika has challenged the order passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference No.61/85, 55/85 and 59/85 decided on 6th October 1995, wherein Labour Court, Rajkot has set aside the termination order and granted the reinstatement with continuity of service with 20% backwages for interim period.

(3.) Learned Advocate Ms.D.N.Nanavati appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the respondent workman engaged/appointed by Morbi Nagarpalika has a back door entry without following the recruitment procedure or without following the statutory rules for the appointment. She also submitted that the respondent workman has not completed 240 days continuous service and not worked regularly and he was a daily wager. As and when the work was available, he was called by the Nagar palika and, as the work was not available, his service has been terminated by the Nagar palika. She also raised contention that it is the burden upon the workman to prove that he has completed 240 days continuous service and not upon the Nagarpalika. She relied upon the decision of Learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.10556 of 2003 dated 16/2/2004 and submitted that the Learned Single Judge has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Halvad Nagarpalika and Ors. vs. Jani Deepakbhai Chandravadanbhai & Ors. reported in (2003) 2 GHJ (307) that Section 25-F is not applicable in respect to the workman those who are not regularly selected and appointed by the Nagarpalika. Therefore, relying upon the observations made by the Division Bench, she submitted that here also it is not the case of the workman that he was selected by following the procedure, he was daily wager and accordingly Section 25-F is not applicable and, therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the I.D.Act, 1947. The same decision of the Division Bench has been challenged by the workman before the Apex Court and SLP has been admitted but there is no stay against the said Division Bench judgement granted by the Apex Court, matter is pending as referred to the larger bench.