PARBATBHAI BACHUBHAI CHAVDA Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts necessary for disposal of the present Writ Application are that the petitioners-workmen succeeded before the learned Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) Nos.326 of 1988 to 333 of 1988, they were ordered to be reinstated with 25% back-wages, but, however, no specific direction relating to continuity of service was issued; taking advantage of the same, the respondents were not ready and willing to give the benefit of continuity. The petitioners, therefore, filed Special Civil Application No.1867 of 1999, which was disposed of by this Court on 1st September, 1999 with a direction to the other side to consider the petitioners' representation dated 17th April, 1998.

(2.) At the very outset, I asked the learned Counsel for the respondent-State that what is the consideration about continuity of the service, the learned Counsel, however, submitted that it appears that the said subject had escaped the notice of the concerned authority and, therefore, no orders in relation to continuity of service have been made.

(3.) As the order dated 19th June, 2000, so far as it relates to non-consideration of continuity of service, is not in accordance with the directions of this Court, the petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents that within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order, the concerned Officer shall decide the representation dated 17th April, 1998 in relation to continuity of service only. It is, however, made clear that the jurisdiction of the authority would be to decide the question of continuity of service only and nothing beyond that. The concerned Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer are hereby forewarned that if this time they do not observe the true spirit of this order, then, they would be exposing themselves to a serious risk.