BHAGWAN BHIKAJI GHORBAND Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition, taken up for final hearing, takes an exception to the judgment and award dt.7.2.2001 passed by the Labour Court, Jalna in Reference (IDA) No.26 of 1991.

(2.) The background facts of the case, as disclosed in the petition, are as under :It is the case of the petitioner that he has passed IX Standard examination and he was appointed as a Peon on 1.4.1979 by the respondent. Respondent had issued appointment orders to the petitioner and also services of the petitioner were continued and confirmed by issuing various orders from 11.4.1979 to 18.2.1986. It is further case of the petitioner that services of the petitioner have been terminated by the respondent with effect from 31.3.1986 without assigning any reason and without following the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the said Act" hereinafter, for brevity). The petitioner had raised a dispute before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour initiated a conciliation proceeding. The respondent, however, did not respond and therefore, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court under sections 10(1) and 12(5) of the said Act. On 7.12.2001, the matter came to be referred to the Labour Court, Jalna. The Labour Court issued notices to respondent. Respondent filed its Written Statement and denied the claim of the petitioner. After appreciating the evidence and contentions of the petitioner, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Jalna, rejected the reference. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the contention and evidence led by the petitioner before the Labour Court went unchallenged since the respondent did not step in the witness box and did not lead any evidence. Learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner was appointed by various orders which are annexed to the petition at Exhibit "A" collectively and submitted that the petitioner was duly appointed and his services were continued from 1979 till his termination. The learned Counsel further submitted that merely because there are technical breaks in between, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not continuously worked. It is further argued that the petitioner has continuously worked and therefore, he is entitled for the reliefs of reinstatement and continuity. Learned Counsel further submitted that even the junior persons to the petitioner are appointed and made permanent, however, the same benefit is denied to the petitioner.