NAVNITRAY PARMANAND JANI Vs. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned AGP waives service of rule for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Notice is service qua respondent No.3. Since, this group of petitions involve identical question of law and fact, they are heard together and being disposed off by this common judgment and order.

(2.) The facts are drawn from Special Civil Application No. 20706 of 2018, which are as under:

(3.) Affidavit -in-reply, on issuance of notice, has been filed by the Dy. Executive Engineer, Shetrunji left Bank Canal Sub Division, Talaja. According to him, all the allegations and the averments and the contentions made in this petition would require the dismissal of the petition in limini. None of the rights of the petitioner has been breached and the award being just and proper, does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. The petitioners had been employed on daily wage basis and when they, on their own, had stopped even attending to the work and as they had been appointed for a specific work, as a piecemeal worker, the respondent had no other course open but to terminate their services. It is also urged that the petitioner also had not worked for 240 days continuously, as per the requirement of Section 20(d) of the Act. On the contrary, the evidence before the Labour Court also established that he had not worked continuously for 240 days, which would satisfy the test for attracting the provisions of Section 25h of the Act. Therefore, the reasonings, findings and conclusions arrived at by the labour Court calls for no interference.