KUTCH DISTRICT PANCHAYAT Vs. UMAR SCALE MAHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner - Kutch District Panchayat, being aggrieved by the Award dtd.30/4/1998 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhuj-Kutch in Reference No.102 of 1996 [Old Reference (SCR) No.242 of 1989], is before this Court with a submission that the Award made by the Labour Court is patently illegal and deserves to be quashed.

(2.) From the case of the petitioner itself it would appear that Umar Salemahmad - respondent workman was an employee of the State Government, he was appointed in the Health Department (Malaria Department) on 23/10/1982 as Cleaner, a Class IV post. The State Government in January, 1978, found that the services of the respondent and some other were not required, the employees were declared surplus and the State with a view to see they were not rendered jobless, transferred them to the petitioner and appointed them at Mandvi. The respondent was relieved by the District Malaria Officer on 23/2/1978, thereafter on 10/4/1978, the respondent tendered his resignation to the District Malaria Officer, who in his turn, forwarded the same to the petitioner Panchayat with a direction to pass necessary orders. Thereafter, the District Panchayat instead of passing orders on the resignation letter, directed the respondent to make payment of dues and directed the respondent that unless the dues are cleared off, the resignation would not be accepted. It appears that thereafter, the matter remained in a suspended animation, almost after 10 years, the respondent came to the Labour Court and submitted that he was illegally removed from services, therefore, he was entitled to back wages and reinstatement.

(3.) The petitioner Panchayat appeared before the Labour Court and submitted that the respondent was never appointed by them, he was not employee of the Panchayat, that the respondent was an employee of the State Government, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction, the Labour Court could not make any inquiry into the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent and that the respondent was not entitled to any relief, as he had approached the Labour Court after a lapse of about ten years.