DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. JANAKBHAI NARANBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner - Deputy Executive Engineer (Road and Building Department) has challenged, by way of the present petition, the award dated 08.05.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference (LCS) No. 02 of 2002.

(2.) It was the case of the workman before the Labour Court that, the respondent was working continuously for approximately seven years as a daily rated employee on a section where permanent nature of work was available and it was specifically asserted that despite completion of 240 days in each year, the services of the respondent workman was put an end to with effect from 01.08.1989 which has compelled the respondent workman to approach the industrial forum by way of raising demand, which after submission of failure report was referred to a Labour Court by order dated 28.12.2001 and the Reference was then registered as Reference (LCS) No. 02 of 2002 before the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court at Surendranagar. During the course of the adjudication, a claim statement was submitted by the respondent along with the material available with him. It was also contended that though vide letter dated 01.09.2001 the respondent workman requested to provide work, no steps have been taken by the authority and by referring to some of the averments, a request was made to register the Reference. It was mainly contended, as it seems on record, that there appears to be a clear violation of Sec. 25 (f), (g) and (h) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('I.D. Act' for short).

(3.) To meet with the stand taken by the respondent workman on the issue of violation of Sec. 25 (f), (g) and (h) of the I.D. Act, it was categorically asserted, in the written statement filed by the petitioner in the Court below, that the respondent was merely working on a daily rated employee nor has been kept by the petitioner corporation. It has also been contended that, as the respondent workman was not falling within the criteria prescribed by the Circular dated 10.03.1987, the respondent - workman was not employed in that connection and therefore there is no legitimate right which is emerging in favour of respondent workman. On this background, the case was opposed before the learned Presiding Officer in which, at Exh.6, an affidavit came to be submitted by original applicant - i.e. respondent herein and it was also agitated that no documents related to services have been provided to him and as such there is a violation of the statutory provision. Similarly at Exh.17 one Mr. Bipinbhai Vitthalbhai Limbdiya came to be examined and after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after considering the decision cited before it, a Reference came to be disposed of by an order dated 08.05.2007 passed in Reference (LCS) No. 2 of 2002.