VETERINARY OFFICER Vs. RAJENDRASINH R JHALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the award of the labour Court, Rajkot in Reference No. 661 of 1991. The dispute has arisen in the following circumstances. Rajendrasinh Ranjitsinh Jhala was appointed as Patawala on daily wages in the office of Veterinary Dispensary at Wankaner on 29-7-1986 apparently stating to be appointment for four hours duty daily. Such appointment continued till 19-6-1990. On that date the employee's services were terminated without resorting to the provisions for procedure of retrenchment under S.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. From the simple order issued from time to time extending the period of appointment it is apparent that the appointment from beginning was against vacant post of Patawala which still continues to exist and the post carries on regular emoluments. Reasons for termination was stated to be that as on 15-6-1990 a person has been regularly appointed, the services of the workman were not required. These facts are not in dispute. The Tribunal found that the employee was discharging his duties for 6 hours, beyond the hours mentioned in the order, retrenchment to be invalid being in violation of S.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and directed the workman to be reinstated in the cadre of Patawala of regular pay scale. The workman has been denied backwages by holding that since he has admitted in his statement that he has not made any attempt to seek alternative job, it must be deemed that during the period when termination order remained effective, the workman was working somewhere. On these premise the backwages for the intervening period were denied.

(2.) Special Civil Application No. 502 of 1995 has been preferred by the employer, Rajkot District Panchayat challenging the order of reinstatement on the regular cadre with regular pay scale of the Patawala and the Special Civil Application No. 10233 of 1995 has been filed by the workman challenging the denial of backwages.

(3.) Further facts that may be taken note of that in pursuance of the order of the award the workman was reinstated and thereafter by fresh order dated 27-11-1995 services of the employee have been again terminated in violation of S.25G of I.D. Act. The subsequent termination has also been challenged by amending writ petition Special Civil Application No. 10253 of 1995.