CHIEF OFFICER, SAVARKUNDLA MUNICIPALITY Vs. HUSENBHAI O. CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxx xxx xxx.

(2.) The workmen inter alia contended that they orally came to be terminated because they had demanded regularisation and other incidental benefits from the municipality. Each of the workmen had completed more than 240 days of service at the time when oral termination was effected. Some of the workmen have put in more than five years' service. Some of the workmen have put in more than 10 years' service. Since the workmen have put in long service in the petitioner-municipality, they had raised several demands and also regularisation which was accepted and therefore, industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court upon a Reference by the Government The workmen also contended that the impugned termination orders of the petitioner-municipality are without any notice and in violation of the provisions of Sections 25F, 25G, 25H and 33(1) of the I.D. Act and also the provisions of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963.

(3.) xxx xxx xxx.