ASHOKBHAI JETHABHAI JADAV Vs. CHIEF OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr.Yogesh Ravani and Ms.P.C.Fernandis on behalf of the petitioners and learned advocates Mr.Y.V.Shah and Mr.R.D.Rawal for respondents in respective petition. Ms.Rina Patel, Chief Officer of the Petlad Nagarpalika is also personally present before this Court.

(2.) In both these petitions, the petitioner has challenged the termination order passed by the Chief Officer, Petlad Nagarpalika. Learned advocate Mr.Ravani has submitted that termination order is contrary to the provisions of Section 25-F & G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He also submitted that no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioners before terminating their services and as such, no justification has been given by the respondent for terminating services of the petitioner. He also submitted that mere offer to collect legal dues, is not enough compliance of Section 25-F & G of the I.D.Act. The order of termination is bad and contrary to the principles of natural justice also violative of mandatory provisions of Section 25-F and G of the I.D.Act. He also submitted that the order of termination is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He also submitted that when services of the petitioners terminated, at that time, juniors to the petitioners remained in service. It is also submitted that once the settlement is recorded by the Tribunal, then the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to set aside the said settlement in absence of the petitioner. He also submitted that the Tribunal has set aside the settlement in absence of the petitioners, that too, without giving an opportunity to the petitioners. The petitioners were not party to the proceedings inspite of the fact that the petitioners were beneficiary of the said settlement. He also submitted that the tribunal has no power under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Industrial Dispute [Gujarat] Rules, 1966 to review own order. Therefore, according to him, termination order is bad and base of the termination order is also bad.

(3.) In both these petitions, the challenge involved is identical. At the time of issuing Rule, this Court passed the following orders in both these petitions on 16th July, 1997 in SCA NO.5159 of 1997 and dated 21st October, 1997 in SCA No.7753 of 1997, since relevant, referred to as under : "Order in SCA No.5159 of 1997 dtd.16.7.97" Mr.Yogesh Ravani for petitioners. Mr.Y.V.Shah enters appearance on behalf of Petlad Nagar Palika, Petlad, District Kheda. Rule, returnable by 1.8.1997. In the mean while the operation of the retrenchment orders in respect of the twelve petitioners herein as per orders dated 10.7.97 passed by the Chief Officer of Petlad Nagar Palika shall remain stayed and these petitioners shall be allowed to continue in service as they were continuing prior to the date of the passing of the impugned order dated 10.7.1997. Direct Service is permitted." "Order in SCA No.7753 of 1997 dtd.20.10.97" Heard Mr.Fernandez for the petitioner. This matter appears to be similar to another petition being SCA No.5159 / 97 wherein similarly situated workmen have been protected. In the circumstances, issue notice to the respondents returnable on 17th November, 1997. In the meanwhile and until further orders there will be ad interim relief in terms of Para-14[C]. To be placed along with SCA No.5159 of 1997 on the returnable date."