CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Order shall also govern disposal of Misc. Petitions Nos. 866 to 869, all of 1990. Parties are common in all petitions except Respondent No. 3, being an individual employee of the Municipal Council who is different in all cases.

(2.) THE Municipal Council, Govindgarh, for short, the 'municipal Council', by these five petitions, have challenged the award passed by the Labour Court in five industrial disputes referred for adjudication by the "appropriate Government" in respect of the common order dated January 25, 1984, passed by the Municipal Council terminating the services of five "workmen" who were appointed as Moharrirs vide order dated February 15, 1982 and were working as such till their termination. The Labour Court, after appreciation of evidence and material produced held that the activities of the Municipal Council fell within the definition of 'industry" as defined in Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short, the 'i. D. Act', and the employees whose services were terminated were "workmen" falling within the definition of Section 2 (s) of the I. D. Act. Preceding to the termination, the workmen completed 240 days' of continuous service and as the termination was for the reason that the five posts of the Moharrirs were not sanctioned by the Director, Urban Administration, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, and that the said reason for termination is not covered within the excepted or excluded category mentioned in Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 2 (oo) of the ID Act, which amounted to retrenchment. Before retrenching the workmen, preconditions of Section 25-F were not complied with, therefore, the termination is void ab initio. Hence, the Labour Court set aside the Order of termination and directed reinstatement of the workmen with back wages.

(3.) SHRI S. C. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner-Municipal Council and Smt. Indira Nair, learned counsel for the respondents-workmen, were heard.