ASHOK KUMAR KNAUBHAI SOLANKI Vs. RAJPIPLA MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Mankad learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Havewala learned advocate for Mr. Mehta learned advocate for the respondent. Rule. At the request of learned advocates and with their consent the petition is taken up for final Nearing and disposal today. Mr. Havewala has waived service of Notice of Rule.

(2.) The petitioner, an employee of Rajpipla Municipality, has brought under challenge award dated 5-9-2008 passed by the Labour Court Bharuch in reference (LCB) No. 111 of 2001 whereby the Labour Court has rejected the reference and declined to grant relief as prayed for by the petitioner-workman. The petitioner-workman raised industrial dispute in connection with his termination from service, with effect from 1-8- 2000. It was his case that he was terminated with effect from 1-8-2000 and before, terminating his service any procedure prescribed by law was not followed. He claimed that action of the respondent Municipality was in nature of victimisation and tainted by mala fide besides being illegal. Conciliation proceedings failed and the dispute culminated in the aforesaid reference. The petitioner-workman filed his statement of claim before Labour Court reiterating aforesaid allegations.

(3.) The reference was contested by the respondent Municipality. The respondent Municipality raised contention that it being a local authority would not be covered within the purview of definition of the term "industry" under Sec. 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The respondent Municipality further claimed that the respondent was engaged intermittently from time to time on need basis and he. had not completed work for 240 days either in immediately preceding 12 months or even in of the earlier 12 months' period. The respondent Municipality claimed that the petitioner-workman was engaged, from time to time, on fixed tenure basis and that therefore, his employment with the respondent Municipality was covered under Sec. 2(oo)(bb) and that therefore, there was no question of violation of Sec. 25(F) of the Act as alleged by the petitioner-workman or otherwise.