PRAKASH BUDHAJI JADHAV Vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition is directed against an award of the Labour Court, dismissing a Reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .

(2.) The Petitioner worked with the Respondent as a peon at the Reay Road Office between 17th July 1995 and 31st January 1998. From 17th July 1995, until 28th July 1995, the Petitioner was paid wages at the rate of Rs.40 per day. From May 1996 until may 1997 the wages were increased to Rs.60 per day. From June 1997, the Petitioner was paid salary at the rate of Rs.2,000 per month. According to the petitioner, there was a vast disparity in the wages and other conditions of service that were allowed to him as compared to other Peons who were permanently engaged. The latter, according to the Petitioner, received a salary of about Rs.5,000 per month together with allowances and leave. In the month of January 1998, the Petitioner made a grievance to the Senior Administrative Officer who assured the Petitioner that his grievance would be looked into. However, on 31st January 1998, the petitioner was told not to report for work with effect from Moyiday, 2nd February 1998. By a letter dated 3rd September 1998, the Petitioner claimed re-in-statement. The demand of the Petitioner was taken into Conciliation and upon a failure report, a reference to adjudication was made.

(3.) The Respondent filed a written statement. Evidence was adduced on behalf of the workman and the management. The Labour Court by its award dated 2nd August 2002 dismissed the Reference. The primary finding of the Labour Court is that the petitioner had not worked continuously for 240 days. This finding has been arrived at by the labour Court on a perusal of the vouchers. The evidence on the record showed that the name of the Petitioner was not borne on the Muster Roll or wage Register and payments were made to him on vouchers. The case of the management was that the Petitioner was being called upon to work whenever work was available, on a temporary basis. The labour Court held that as soon as a temporary vacancy came to an end, the work for which the Petitioner was appointed was concluded and there was no question of the workman being terminated. The labour Court was of the view that the management has also proved that the workman had stopped reporting for duty from June 1998 and there was accordingly an abandonment of service by the Petitioner. ,