SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT PANCHAYAT EMPLOYEES UNION AND OTHERS Vs. SURENDRANGAR DISTRICT PANCHAYAT THROUGH THE SECRETATY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 were working as Daily Wagers when their services came to be terminated by the impunged order, Annexure 'D" dated 26th May 1987 by the third respondent. The short facts giving rise to this petition are as under.

(2.) The petitioners Nos.2 to 6 had raised certain disputes which were referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. These disputes related to the illegal termination of the said petitioners from service and for a direction that they should be absorbed as permanent servants. The allegation was that their services were terminated without assigning any reason whatsoever and without notice with effect from 21st April 1985. As against. this the contention of the employer was that they had themselves ceased to attend duty with effect from 11 th or 21 st April 1985. It was also averred by the employer that even in the past their attendance was irregular. However, it appears from the averments noted in paragraph 3 of the award that these petitioners had worked for 59 days during January-February 1986. In other words even after their so called termination with effect from 21 st April 1985, they were given work as Daily Wagers in January-February 1986 for 59 days. The Labour Court on an appreciation of evidence tendered before it came to the conclusion that the workmen had failed to show that their services were illegally terminated with effect from 21st April 1985 as alleged and, therefore, there was no question of reinstatement in service with back wages. It also came to the conclusion that their claim for permanent absorption was unsustainable. In this view that the Labour Court took, it dismissed the reference with costs quantifying the amount of cost at Rs. 100/-. After this order was made on 1st October 1986, the impunged order, Annexure 'D' came to be passed whereby the services of the workmen came to be terminated. There is an allegation in the impunged order about the case having been disposed of on 14thMay 1987. We inquired of learned Counsel for the respondents if this reference pertained to any other award other than the one produced at Annexure 'A' to the petition. There is also a reference in the impunged order that the relief for being treated as permanent employees was rejected. He submitted that the reference was to the order of the Labour Court dated 1st October 1986 since there was no other order. We, therefore, proceed on the premise that the impunged order, Annexure 'D', came to be passed pursuant to the Labour Court's order rejecting the reference in toto. The question then is, whether the respondents were justified in passing the impunged order on the basis of Labour Court's order.

(3.) The grievance of the workmen is that their services have been terminated in violation of the rule of last-come-first-go. In this behalf the extract from the final seniority list of daily-wagers working on roads in Limbdi Sub Division is produced at Annexure 'B'. The names of petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 appear at S. Nos. 29, 30,48, 62 and 92 of the said seniroty list. We find from this list that workers at S. Nos. 93 to 96 continue on the establishment whereas the petitioners who arc admittedly seniors to them arc out of service. The list shows that there are several other juniors who continue on the establishment. If for want of work the Department desires to terminate the services, assuming the Department can do so in regard to daily-rated workers also, the rule of last-come-first-go must be applied. It is not open to the Department to pick and choose. In the instant case the Department has served the impunged order of termination, Anncxure 'D', on a misconception that the Department is entitled to do so pursuant to the Labour Court's order of 1st October 1986. It is not contended anywhere in the counter that the Department has adherecd to the rule of last-come-first-go. The case of the Department is that they were entitled to terminate the services of the petitioners as per the order of the Labour Court, which, in our view, is throughly misconceived. In this view of the matter we think that the impunged order, Annexure 'D', which is ex-facie misconceived, cannot be allowed to stand. We arc not prepared to relegate the petitioners to an industrial dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act when we find that respondent No.3 has acted under a misconception and in-an arbitrary manner in passing the impunged order, Annexure 'D'.