PAWAN KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent aggrieved of the order dated September 19, 1996 passed in W. P. No. 3330 of 1996 by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this appeal are thus: The appellant who holds a Diploma in Civil Engineering and had only year's experience of working in the Public Works Department, State of M. P. was appointed by the respondent as Sub-Engineer on daily wages for a period of one month on its work charge establishment to work under Executive Engineer (Scheme) vide order dated November 2, 1995. After expiry of one month the employment of the appellant was continued without any break for the various schemes undertaken by the respondent for due performance of its functions. As post of the Sub-Engineer was lying vacant appellant applied on May 11, 1996 for regularisation of his service, on which no action was taken. Surprisingly on June 27, 1996 when the appellant reported for duty, he was not permitted to join his duties in view of a general order passed on June 17, 1996 by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation that the services of all the employees on daily wages appointed after May 1, 1995 shall stand terminated.

(3.) THE appellant challenged the action of termination of employment which amounted to retrenchment without complying with the mandatory pre-conditions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act' ). The respondent in the reply of the writ petition did not dispute about continuous working of the appellant for more than 240 days in a calendar year. However, it was contended that the appointment of the appellant, as is evident from the order dated November 2, 1995, was in work charge establishment on daily wages to work under the Executive Engineer (Schemes) as the respondent had undertaken to execute the various schemes of the State Government. The appointment of the appellant was for a specific period of one month, but, as the work continued the appellant's services were utilized on day to day basis till July 26, 1996. Only because the appellant possessed some technical qualification or that he was engaged for some time on daily wages on work-charge-basis, would not entitle him to claim regularisation in violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Learned Judge of the Writ Court did not entertain the petition observing that the petition involves mixed questions of law and fact which can be adjudicated appropriately on an approach to be made to the Labour Court. Accordingly, the petition was disposed of with a liberty to the appellant to approach the Labour Court.