VISHWAS BHIMRAO DHUMAL Vs. KOPARGAON NAGARPALIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated July 27, 1985, passed by the Labour Court, Ahmednagar, setting aside the order of termination served on the petitioner but declining re-instatement and directing payment of compensation of Rs. 3,000/-. The few facts which are not in dispute and gave rise to this petition are as follows:

(2.) Kopargaon Nagarpalika appointed the petitioner as Pump Operator in February 21, 1979, for a duration of six months. The appointment Idler clearly recited that the petitioner should apply to the Stale Selection Board as and when the post would be advertised by the Board and in case he is not selected his services were liable to be terminated even before the expiry of period of six months. At the expiry of six months, the petitioner was continued by another appointment letter and with the same terms and conditions. The service of the petitioner came to an end on March 31, 1981, and thereafter the petitioner was not given a fresh appointment. The petitioner complained that his services were terminated by adopting unfair labour practice and amounts to victimisation. The petitioner claimed that he was appointed in a permanent vacancy and having worked for about 340 days during the period of 12 calendar months, he should be deemed to have been in continuous service, and if so, the petitioner could not have been discontinued without adopting the prescribed procedure. It was also claimed that discontinuation amounts to retrenchment and that requirements of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") were not complied with. The Municipal Council declined to accept the claim and thereupon the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Pune, made a reference under Section 10(1)(d) and Section 12(5) of the Act to the Labour Court at Ahmednagar.

(3.) The petitioner sought reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. The Municipal Council resisted the proceedings before the Labour Court claiming that the petitioner was appointed for a temporary period as the candidate nominated by the State Selection Board was not available. The Municipal Council claimed that the post of Pump Operator is a technical post and the qualification is Second Class Wireman Course (I.T.I.). The Municipal Council pointed out that the post of Pump Operator was sanctioned by the Collector and appointment to the post could be made only of a candidate selected by the State Selection Board. The Municipal Council, therefore, claimed that the petitioner though specifically informed to apply to the State Selection Board, failed to do so and, therefore, could not be continued in employment.