EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. DINESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel rival parties.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26.2004 passed by Industrial Court dismissing the Revision (ULP) Nos. 259 and 260 of 2003 and confirming the judgment and order dated 18.8.2003 passed by Third Labour Court, Nagpur, in Complaint (ULP) Nos. 15 of 1998 and 16 of 1998, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) In support of writ petition, Mr. Jagtap learned counsel for the petitioners argued that both the Courts below committed error in not holding that the respondents were working under Employment Guarantee Scheme as workmen and their complaints were not maintainable in view of various decisions rendered by this Court that those working under Employment Guarantee Scheme are not working in industry and consequently no complaint would be maintainable against the establishment of Employment Guarantee Scheme. He then argued that the respondents did not prove to the satisfaction of the Court that they had completed 240 days in one year of continuous service preceding the date of their termination and therefore the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below were required to be set aside. He then argued that the respondents could not have been allowed back wages as has been done by the courts below awarding full back wages since there was absence of pleadings and evidence that they were not gainfully employed.