BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT PUNCHAYAT Vs. RAJUBHAI PRAVINBHAI SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petitions, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Panchayat has challenged common award dated 28. 11. 1997 whereby the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) Nos. 128/92, 129/92, 245/92, 324/92, 327/92, 435/92, 742/93 and 35/94 has directed the petitioner to reinstate the concerned workmen, however, without benefit of back wages.

(2.) THE facts leading to present petitions are that, the workmen concerned in the aforesaid reference proceedings were, as per the petitioner's case, engaged purely on fixed tenure basis and that they were engaged to cope up with the increase in work load. It is the further case of the petitioner that after the work for which the concerned workmen were engaged was over, the concerned workmen were relieved in terms of their appointment orders. Upon being aggrieved by their such termination, the concerned workmen raised industrial dispute which culminated into aforesaid reference proceedings. The concerned workmen filed their statement of claim alleging, inter alia, that they were engaged and serving as Junior Clerk / Clerk on daily wage bases and that their services were abruptly and arbitrarily terminated w. e. f. 31. 5. 1989 by oral orders. They also claimed that despite the fact that the demand notices for reinstatement with consequential benefits were given, the same were not considered and therefore, they were compelled to approach the Court. The concerned workmen alleged breach of sections 25 (F), 25 (G) and 25 (H) and also alleged that the action was arbitrary.

(3.) THE petitioner herein opposed the said reference proceedings by filing its written statement and claimed that it is a local authority and therefore, provisions of industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] would not be applicable. It was further claimed in the written statement that the petitioner panchayat was assigned the responsibility of execution of procedures and formalities relating to the selection and recruitment procedure for appointment of Peons which was undertaken by the Public Service commission. It was claimed that the said responsibility entailed sudden increase in the work load and therefore, the petitioner had to engage additional men on daily wage and ad-hoc basis to tie up the situation and to cope up with such temporary additional work load. The petitioner claimed that it was for such purpose that the concerned persons were engaged after receiving applications from them and after issuing appointment orders which contained specific condition that they were being engaged for the specified work, limited purpose and period only and that immediately upon completion of the work, they will be relieved and that accordingly upon completion of the work, the concerned persons were relieved w. e. f. 30. 4. 1989. During the pendency of the said reference proceedings, both the sides led their respective oral and documentary evidence and thereafter upon considering the submissions made by both the sides and evidence produced on record, the Labour court passed the impugned award directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondents. The Labour Court has held that there was breach of Section 25 (F) and therefore, the court passed the impugned award. Aggrieved by the said award and directions, the petitioner is before this Court.