HARPAL SINGH M JADEJA Vs. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this group of the petitions, common questions are involved. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Special civil application No. 7519 of 1996 (first petition) is filed by three employees, special civil application No. 7570 of 1996 is filed by seven employees (second petition) and special civil application No. 7694 of 1996 (third petition) is filed by the employer-Gujarat State Water Supply and Sewerage Board (Board) against the interim common order dated 9.9.1996 recorded by the Labour Court, Rajkot below Ex.16 in complaint case No. 3 of 1995.

(2.) The employer-Board is constituted for the main objective of providing drinking water to the villages and in most remote places in the State of Gujarat and also providing sewerage system. The mechanical division of the said Board takes up the scheme of providing drinking water and sewerage system to the villages depending upon the population and availability of water resource. The said division also takes up the projects of drilling of bores and puts up hand pumps on the bores. The mechanical division also looks after the operation and maintenance of the hand pump. On receipt of complaints from Gram Panchayats which are usually looking after the maintenance of the bores, the mechanical division sends the employees for repairs and maintenance of the said hand pumps.

(3.) The case of the workmen is that they are serving as daily wagers and doing work of helpers with the management of the Board since long and the Board tried to terminate their services. Six persons initially went to the Labour Court who had applied for interim relief. Later on, 12 employees joined as parties. All the 18 employees were granted ad-interim relief initially by the Labour Court in the complaint under Sec. 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("ID Act") which came to be vacated by the Labour Court by the impugned order dated 9.9.1996 in respect of 12 persons who subsequently joined the complaint proceedings. Six employees who had initiated the proceedings by filing the complaint under Sec. 33-A being complaint No.3 of 1995 succeeded in getting the ad-interim relief confirmed till the hearing; whereas, 12 persons failed to get the interim relief as the ad-interim relief granted by the Labour Court came to be vacated. With the result, the first two petitions are filed by the group of 3 to 7 employees respectively; whereas, the third petition is filed by the Board against six employees in whose favour interim relief came to be granted by the Labour Court. It appears that two employees have not moved in the matter and have not taken the dispute any further. Thus, 16 out of 18 employees are before this court in these three petitions. 10 employees in the first two petitions failed to get interim relief. Therefore, first two petitions are filed at their instance; whereas, the Board has filed the third petition challenging grant to interim relief in favour of six employees.