RAJAPALAYAN MUNICIPALITY Vs. P O ADDL LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D. Nos. 233 and 248 of 1987, the above writ petitions have been filed.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court has erroneously allowed the claim petitions. According to the petitioner, the second respondent in respective writ petitions are NMR Coolies engaged seasonally and they were not regular and permanent employees of the petitioner Municipality. Their only duty is to remove garbage accumulated in the reservoir. Their services were never utilised to operate electrical and diesel motor pump sets. They are paid only daily wages. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon on Ex. M. 1., document of electricity connection related to water supply scheme and sEx. M.2, horse power of the motor mentioned in Ex. Ml. He further submits that one Mr. G. Ravindran, MW1 has been examined and on his evidence it shows that the 2nd respondent in respective writ petitions were employed during winter for cleaning and removal of garbage floating in the water so as to ensure smooth flow of water in the river. From the evidence of WW2 and WW3 it is clear that the respondents have been employed for cleaning and maintenance of pipes during the winter season. But the Labour Court ignoring the same awarded reinstatement of the second respondents in respective writ petitions with back wages. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the second respondents in respective writ petitions have not come forward with a petition under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act for vacating the interim stay granted by this Court. This itself shows that they were employed somewhere else.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions to substantiate his contention that daily rated workers are not eligible for regular appointments. (1) Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur and another v. Veer Singh Rajput and others, 1998 (9) SCC 258 : 1998-II-LLJ-627 : (2) Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1997 SC 3657 : 1999 (4) SCC 391 : 1998-II-LLJ-15 : (3) Dr. Arundhati Ajit Pragaonkar v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1995 SC 962 : 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 380 : 1995-I-LLJ-927 : (4) Balwinder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1999-II-LLJ- 1116(HP-DB).