ASHOK U NIKAM Vs. TATA POWER COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This petition challenges an award passed by the Labour Court at Mumbai in a reference made to it under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The reference was at the instance of the Petitioner workman. The impugned award has rejected the reference.

(2.) The Petitioner's case in his statement of claim was that he was engaged in the activity of manufacturing and supplying electric power in the Respondent establishment between 5 March 1978 and 12 June 1995. During this period, he claimed to have continuously worked with the Respondent, though the company used to give artificial breaks for denying him permanency benefits. He claimed that his services were terminated on 12 June 1995 without giving any chargesheet or conducting any enquiry or even following the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He, accordingly, claimed reinstatement in service with full back wages and continuity in service with effect from 12 June 1995. It was the case of the Respondent that the Petitioner was working intermittently during the period from 5 March 1978 to 12 June 1995 on specific projects and on specific orders of appointment and after completion of the individual projects, his services came to an end on each of these occasions. The Respondent denied continuous employment of the Petitioner as also 240 days of continuous service. The Labour Court framed issues concerning completion of 240 days continuous service as also legality of his termination on 12 June 1995. The Court held that the Petitioner was appointed on temporary basis for specific periods and that too on projects and had not completed 240 days of continuous service with the Respondent.

(3.) It is pertinent to note that though the Petitioner went before the Labour Court with a specific case that he was in continuous service with the Respondent establishment between 5 March 1978 to 12 June 1995, he could not show that save and except the period during which he worked on a particular project with the Respondent from 24 January 1981 to 30 April 1984 he worked for 240 days preceding twelve months prior to any of his earlier terminations. The record indicates that there were several orders of his appointment for different lengths of service.