DATTARAM B MALUSARE Vs. GUJARAT POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this group of petitions, separate but similar award dated 20.12.2004 passed by the learned Labour Court in Reference No.303 of 1989 is brought under challenge. By the impugned award dated 20.12.2004, the learned Labour Court, Vadodara has partly allowed the reference and directed present petitioners to pay lump sum amount at the rate of Rs.50,000/ as compensation to each workman concerned in the reference (except one Mr. P.B. Vishwas) in lieu of reinstatement and backwages.

(2.) So far as the factual background is concerned, broadly stated the facts in case of each workman are almost similar. The case or defence raised by the respondent in respect of the claimants (i.e. the petitioners), is also common and similar.

(3.) The petitioners claimed before the learned Labour Court that they were working with the respondent Board as Field Attendant. It is also claimed that they worked with the respondent Board for about 18 months to 24 months inasmuch as some of the petitioners were appointed in December 1986, while some others were appointed in January 1987 or July 1987, couple of petitioners were appointed in April 1987 at different field stations. The petitioners ­ claimants also claimed before the learned Labour Court that their services were illegally, abruptly and arbitrarily terminated w.e.f. 6.1.1989 by the respondent Board by oral order. With such allegations, the petitioners raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the learned Labour Court, Vadodara vide order of reference dated 14.3.1989. The reference was registered as Reference Case No.303 of 1989. In the said reference, present petitioners filed their statements of claim they alleged that they had worked for 12 consecutive months and for more than 240 days. The petitioners also claimed that they had submitted their applications in November 1986 and they were called for interview on or around 29.11.1986 for the post of Field Assistant and that they were selected and appointed after the process of interview and were appointed on different dates starting from 1.12.1986. The petitioners also claimed that at the relevant time the respondent Board had five field stations in the local limit of Vadodara and one of the field stations operated round the clock, i.e. for 24 hours. The petitioners also claimed in their statements of claim that they were deployed at different field stations. According to the claim of the petitioners first shift started at 6.00 a.m. and the second shift started at 2.00 p.m. and third shift started at 10.00 p.m. It was also claimed that the field stations were located at Makarpara, IPCL, Race Course, Nyay Mandir, etc. It was also claimed that the equipments for performing their duties, were supplied by the respondent Board. The petitioners also claimed that they were paid salary at the rate of Rs.20 per day and many a times they were asked to work over time, i.e. they were asked to work continuously in two shifts and they were not considered eligible for any leave or even weekly off. The petitioners also claimed that on 6.1.1989, they were informed by one Mr. Bhatt, Regional Officer that they were relieved from service and he also asked the petitioners to put signature on certain letters which were kept ready by the said officer. They alleged that when they examined the letters they noticed that according to the text of said letters they had voluntarily resigned from service and that, therefore, they refused to sign said letters and that, therefore, they were not allowed to work from the next day when they reported for duty. The petitioners also alleged that subsequently, the petitioners were called for discussion to settle the dispute. The meeting was conducted on 6.2.1989 in presence of Mr.Bhatt, Regional Officer and Mr.Pandya, Assistant Law Officer. According to the petitioners, after discussion it was agreed that the petitioners will be reinstated with effect from 13.2.1989. However, on 13.2.1989 when they reported for duty, they were not allowed to resume duties and Mr.Bhatt, Regional Officer informed that their services are not required.