CHITAL GROUP GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. BHARATBHAI CHHAGANBHAI JETHWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel for the petitioner in all the writ applications; Shri G.M. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent in all the writ applications.

(2.) From the records, it appears that during pendency of the Demand Case No. 53/98 LCA [LCB] No. 3/97, Industrial Dispute Complaints No. 61/98, 62/98, 63/98, 69/98 and 70/98 [Amreli] came to be filed with a statement that during pendency of the Demand Case wherein each of the workman had claimed regularization, present petitioner-employer has removed each of the workman from the services without observing the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, or even without obtaining permission under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(3.) Case of each of the workman was that they were working as Sweepers on the tractors employed by the present petitioner for the purpose of collection of garbage. After the tractors were sent for repairs, each of the workman came to be removed and thereafter they were not re-employed. The present petitioner, after notice appeared in the complaint cases and submitted that as there was no work, daily wagers could not be continued. It was also submitted that as a mater of fact, each of the workman had abandoned the services.