LAWS(GJH)-2017-3-499

RAMESHKUMAR JETHALAL THAKKAR Vs. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

Decided On March 15, 2017
Rameshkumar Jethalal Thakkar Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, who is a representative of the workmen, who as also the member of the Union, has approached this Court, challenging the termination of their services by Respondent Nos.1 and 2. The petitioners were the Second Party before the Labour Court, Kalol, in Reference (LCK) Nos. 60 of 2006, 53 to 57 of 2006 and 62 of 2006. It was their say that their financial condition is very weak and therefore, they individually cannot knock the door of justice.

(2.) The facts in capsulized form are that the petitioners-workmen in the reference before the Labour Court were employed by the Respondents after following the due procedure. They were given the artificial breaks in service to deny them the continuity of service and the exploitation was experienced by the petitioners. They were appointed in the year 1982 and they used to be continued for a period of 29 days and with artificial breaks in service, they continued to serve the respondents till their services came to be terminated on 12.08.1988.

(3.) It is the say of the petitioners that the management produced appointment orders and contended that there was no continuous service and the artificial breaks were given for denying the benefit of continuity of service to the petitioners. It is, further, the say of the petitioner that after the last order of 1983, no subsequent order was issued, and thereafter, to show the nature of duties performed by the the petitioners, the service book of the concerned workmen had been pressed into service. It is their say that service books could be only of the permanent employees. They were granted the benefit of revised pay-scale. The service book shows an endorsement that on the regularization, benefit of revised pay-scale has been given to them. It is, therefore, their say that termination cannot be effected without following mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the ID Act').