DEVENDRA PANDURANG PANDORE Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Writ Petition, the Petitioner challenges the Award dated 28th February 1996 passed by the presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kolhapur by which the labour Court has held that the first Respondent Council has committed a breach of Section 25f and Section 25g of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and that the termination of service effected from 1st January 1987 is illegal. However, the labour Court has not granted the relief to the petitioner of reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. This relief has been denied by the labour Court on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Sub-Overseer was against a reserved post. Relying on the judgment in Chakrsdhar paswan vs. State of Bihar and others, 1988 I CLR 408, the Labour Court rejected the Reference.

(2.) THE facts in the present case are not in dispute. The Petitioner was appointed for a period of 30 days as a Sub-Overseer in the first Respondent council from 1st January 1986. He was continued in employment as a Sub-Overseer by issuing fresh appointment letters from month to month upto 31st december 1986. On 1st January 1987, there was cessation of employment between the Petitioner and the first respondent Council. It appears that on 1st April 1987, the Petitioner was given employment by the Council as a clerk on a temporary basis. This employment was given on a monthly basis upto 30th June 1987 after which the petitioner's services were terminated. A dispute was raised by the Petitioner in February 1988 for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages with effect from 1st January 1987. Reference was made for adjudication under Section 10 read with sub-section (l) (d) of the Act. By Award dated 28th February 1986, the Petitioner was denied the benefit of reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.

(3.) MR. DHARAP, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, submits that the Award of the Labour Court is bad in law as the Labour Court having come to the conclusion that there was an illegality committed by the Respondent by terminating the Petitioner's services from 1st January 1987, ought "to have granted reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. He submits that the Petitioner having completed 240 days was entitled to this benefit since the provisions of sections 25f and 25g of the Act had not complied with. The learned Advocate submits that assuming that the petitioner had not challenged the order of termination dated 20th June 1987, the Labour Court could well have considered whether the termination effected from 1st january 1987 could hold the field. He submits that the labour Court atleast ought to have awarded back wages from 1st January 1987 to 31st March 1987 and then from 1st July 1987 onwards till 30th June 1994 when a candidate from the reserved category was available for the post of Sub-Overseer.