MINICIPAL COUNCIL SHAHPUR Vs. STATE LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner assails the Award passed by the Labour Court, Jabalpur directing the reinstatement of respondent No. 2. Labour Court held that respondent No. 2 was illegally retrenched.

(2.) Respondent No. 2 was employed on daily wage basis on 8.6.1979 as Pump Operator. He was removed from service on 5.1.1988. Initially he was removed on 1.10.1983. There he was reinstated as per Court's Order on 23.7.86. The case of the Municipal Council, Shahpur was that the workman was again removed under the order issued by Deputy Director, Urban Administration, Jabalpur on 5.1.1988. Since the workman was working on daily wages basis, he was not entitled to the retrenchment compensation. The Labour Court found that the workman had served for more than 240 days in each of the preceding year. Thus he was entitled to the protection of provision of Sec. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act which was denied. He was not paid retrenchment compensation. Notice was also not given to him. Thus reinstatement was directed along with the back-wages. Pursuant to the Order passed, respondent No. 2 stood reinstated and he is in service even today.

(3.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri V.S. Shroti. He strenuously submits that it is a case where condition of service of Municipal employee is governed by Municipal Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1968 where the rule governing conditions of service is in the force the provision of Sec. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act does not come into play. He places reliance on Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi Vs. State of Bihar, 1997 (76) FLR 237 (SC). In that case, the view taken by the Supreme Court was that Government department cannot be treated to be an industry when the appointments are governed by the statutory rules. Provision of Sec. 25-F of does not apply to Government departments. Thus it was on this basis held that the Government department could not be treated to be an industry. It was held by their Lordships that disengagement from service of such an employee cannot be considered to be retrenchment under Industrial Disputes Act. This view that Government departments are not industry was also taken by the Supreme Court in Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post Vs. Theyyam Joseph, 1996 (72) FLR 690 (SC) , and Bombay Telecom Canteen Employees Association Vs. Union of India, 1997 (77) FLR 25 (SC) . The Supreme Court over-ruled the said decisions in General Manager Telecom Vs. S. Shrinivas Rao, AIR 1988 SC 656 , and laid down that Bangalore Water Supply Vs. A. Rajappa, 1978 (36) FLR 266 (SC) , still holds the field and refused to refer to the case to larger Bench in Coir Board, Ernakulam, Cochin and another Vs. Indira Devi and others., 1998 (78) FLR 847 (SC) . Supreme Court held that "Bangalore Water Supply case does not in our opinion, requires reconsideration." Thus, similar view propounded in Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi's case. Taking view that Government department can not be treated as industry cannot be accepted. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner does not survive and stands to be rejected. There are no rules framed for removal of daily wage employee, hence provision of Sec. 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is attracted to the case.