SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT Vs. HANSABEN HARJIBHAI RATHOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against an award dated 19.11.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.11, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.1431 of 1998, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated with 20% back wages from the date from which the respondent was discontinued from the service.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that respondent workman was working as a Sweeper and simultaneously, the duty was to supply water, for a fixed period. As per the statement of claim submitted by the respondent workman, she was engaged in the work w.e.f. 4.6.1982 and the part-time services were allocated under the Training Officer at Principal Examination and Training Office of Social Welfare Department, Old Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar. As per her further assertion in the statement of claim, she was discharging the duties from 10.00 O'clock in the morning till 6.00 p.m. in the evening and was being paid the salary amenable to a part-time employee. Intermittently, the work was being taken of new daily wagers those who were in close proximity of the authority. However, ultimately, orally w.e.f. 30.3.1996 as per the say of the respondent workman, she came to be discontinued, with the result a reference was filed and as such, the dispute was raised before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, who, upon submission of failure report, referred the matter for adjudication before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad.

(3.) It appears from the record that the claim statement has been submitted by the respondent workman herein at Exh.7, in which a letter of appointment also came to be annexed. To meet with the stand taken by the respondent workman, the present petitioners before the Labour Court have submitted a written reply at Exh.8 and denied the contentions raised. It was pleaded by the petitioners that the respondent was merely doing the work of sweeping and supplying the water and was not a permanent employee. It was also pleaded that she was being paid the daily wages as per the prevailing norms. A formal contention also appears to have been taken that the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (for short 'the I.D.Act') is not amenable to the petitioners. It was also submitted hat there was no question of giving any written order or notice pay. It was also pointed out that as per the Resolution dated 22.1.1996 issued by the Social Welfare Department, Gandhingar, whereby as a economy measure, 10% posts have been reduced, resultantly the office at which the respondent was working had to be closed down and, therefore, since the office is closed down and there was no necessity of work, the daily rated employees were not continued and it has also been asserted in the said reply that no other employee was engaged on that work and by submitting such a stand, the reference was contested.