DISTRICT PANCHAYAT Vs. KIRITKUMAR V PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned advocate Mr. Vyas is appearing for the petitioner Panchayat. The respondent workman was served with the notice of rule. However, he has not been represented by anybody.

(2.) The facts of the present case, in short, are that the respondent workman was working with the petitioner panchayat as a peon with effect from 28/06/1981 and that he was continued as such till 30/08/1982. Thereafter, the services of the respondent workman were terminated by the petitioner panchayat. Said action of termination of his services was challenged by the respondent workman before the labour court by filing the Reference (LCR) No. 677 of 1983. Before the labour court, the workman has filed the statement of claim in which it was pointed out by the workman that the termination order which was passed by the petitioner panchayat is illegal, arbitrary and violative of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the ID Act" for short). The order of termination was also challenged on the ground that it is violative of the provisions of section 25G and 25H of the ID Act. Before the labour court, the petitioner panchayat had filed its written statement vide Exh. 3 and it was pointed out by the panchayat that the father of the respondent workman Shri Vajubhai Parmar was serving in the panchayat as labourer cum operator who died while in employment on 14.4.1981 and therefore, the panchayat had moved proposal for appointment of the workman as peon in the Government. That before the sanction is accorded by the Government, the mother of the respondent workman applied on 28th June, 1981 to give temporary employment to her son i.e. the workman herein and the said application was considered by the panchayat and appointment orders were given to the workman herein. According to the petitioner panchayat, the proposal for giving employment to the workman as aforesaid was rejected by the Government because monthly income of the family of the workman was more than Rs. 400.00 and in these circumstances, the workman herein was not continued in service and was discharged from service. The panchayat had further raised contention before the labour court that it was a fixed term appointment of 29 days' period on temporary basis and the workman was not an industrial workman and, therefore, his service was governed by the provisions of the Bombay Civil Services Rules and the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not applicable to the panchayat and the respondent workman has also alternative remedy of appeal before the Gujarat State Civil Service Tribunal and, therefore, the reference should be rejected.

(3.) Before the labour court, the respondent has produced twelve letters of appointment vide Exh. 14 to 18 and his service was terminated on 30.8.1982. Before the labour court, the workman was examined vide Exh. 38 and he had deposed before the labour court that from 28th June, 1981 to 30th August, 19182, he was continued in service and that he has completed 240 days' continuous service and that his service was terminated by the petitioner panchayat without following the provisions of section 25F of the ID Act. Before the labour court, he has also deposed that he was unemployed during the intervening period. As against this, the panchayat has not led any oral evidence in support of the contentions which were raised by it in its written statement before the labour court. In paragraph 10 of the impugned award, the labour court has considered that while terminating the services of the respondent workman, the petitioner panchayat has violated the provisions of Sec. 25F of the ID Act. The labour court has also considered the contention raised by the panchayat in paragraph 12 of the written statement that there is no question of recruitment through selection process and it was not a case of the panchayat that the workman was called for interview and that he was not selected by the panel of the selection committee.