KUMAR G MEHTA Vs. GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed on behalf of 10 persons mentioned in the list Annexure-A by the Safai Kamdar Sangh for a direction to the respondents to treat termination of the service of the persons mentioned in Annexure-A as illegal, unconstitutional and null and void and to treat their service as continued as if they were not terminated at all.

(2.) The persons mentioned in Annexure-A were the employees of the Gujarat Housing Board-respondent No. 1. Nine persons out of 10 persons filed claim petition before the appropriate authority for their regularization in service. The matter was referred to the Labour Court in Reference LCD No. 94 of 1980. The Labour Court after giving a reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned, rejected the demands No. 1 to 3 as not pressed and with regard to demand No. 4 the Gujarat Housing Board was directed to make permanent 9 persons by the order dated 5-11-1984. One Vashram Harji 10th employee was senior-most but could not be impleaded in the proceedings before the Labour Court. As such, the Labour Court directed these persons to be appointed on regular basis in regular pay-scale of Rs. 196-232 with effect from 1-1-1984. On 1-10-1986 the "Safai Kamdar" were simply told orally by the Time Keeper in-charge that their services were not required in future as per the instructions from the higher authorities. It appears that these 10 "Safai Kamdars" were working in Nari Road Housing Complex, Bhavnagar and that complex was taken over by the Corporation vide the Resolution No. 87 dated 29-10-1983 and that Nari Road, Bhavnagar complex as taken over with civil amenities for a lump sum amount of Rs. 10,000.00 for this work. As the "Safai Kamdars" were not taken over by the Corporation hence they preferred this application.

(3.) An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the Dy. Executive Engineer, Gujarat Housing Board, Bhavnagar, wherein it is stated that the persons mentioned in Annexure-A to the petition were work-charge employees except Sr. No. 1 who was muster role employee. It is also stated in the affidavit-in-reply that the procedure as provided in law was followed before retrenching them from service. Required notice was also sent and on 30-9-1986 and the persons mentioned in Annexure-A were personally called and the notice was given and also offered retrenchment compensation. But they refused to accept the notice or compensation amount. As such, the demand draft of retrenchment compensation was sent by registered post on the same day. But all of them have refused to accept the same. The Dy. Secretary has denied that the petitioners were appointed on regular posts with effect from 1-1-1984 and that they were given regular pay scale. However, Vasahat in question was transferred to the Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation by the Housing Board. Hence, the services of the persons mentioned in Annexure - A were terminated in accordance with law and in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.