STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. KISHORE SHIVDAS CHAUDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the State Government and the District Malaria Officer, Dhule, being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by learned Labour Judge, Dhule in ULP complaint No. 366 of 1992 decided on 24.2.1994. Brief facts giving rise to this petition may be stated as below; The Respondent-complainant approached the Labour Court with a complaint that from June 1987 he was serving as a driver in the office of present appellant No. 2 District Malaria Officer, and orally his services were terminated on 4.7.1989. It is stated that every time appellant No. 2 District Malaria Officer used to issue appointment order for 29 days and giving 1 or 2 days break in service and again used to appoint him for next 29 days. According to the Respondent-complainant, during the period June 1987 to 3.7.1989 various appointment orders were issued to him and thus he completed more than 240 days service in the year preceding the date of termination. There was no complaint against him. His work was unblemished. At the time termination the respondent-complainant was not paid any retrenchment compensation nor any notice was issued to him as required by Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1957 ("The ID Act" for short). Thus, according to the complainant, there is violation of Sec. 25(C),(G) and (N) of the I.D. Act and Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes Rules 1957 ("I.D. Rules" for short). It is also stated that work was available with appellant No. 2 District Malaria Officer and he was also in need of services of driver. The termination was in colourable exercise of employer's right, in undue haste and in violation of principles of natural justice and hence, complaint of unfair labour practise was filed under items (a), (b), (c) and (f) of The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ("MRTU & PULP Act" for brevity's sake).

(2.) Appellant No. 2 District Malaria Officer filed written statement at Exhibit C-5 and denied the claim of the respondent-complainant. It is contended that the driver's post should be filled in through Regional Selection Board ("RS Board" for short). The Civil Surgeon had no authority to recruit the persons on the said post. The complainant was appointed on temporary basis for 29 days till availability of candidate from RSB. In the circumstances, appellant No. 2 District Malaria Officer prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

(3.) Learned Labour Judge while deciding the complaint ULP No.366/1994 came to the conclusion that every time the appointment orders/letters each of 29 days were issued; then there was some break in service; the provisions of Sec. 25(F) of the I.D. Act were not followed prior to termination. There was no notice of one month or payment of salary for one month in lieu of notice. According to the learned Labour Judge, the respondent-complainant has rendered continuous service and, therefore, it is held that the District Malaria Officer has engaged into unfair labour practise. The Learned Judge, therefore, directed reinstatement of the respondent-complainant with immediate effect. Benefit of continuity in service with full back wages was also granted. It is this order which is challenged in this petition.