THE ADMINISTRATIVE MEDICAL OFFICER, E.S.I. SCHEME AND THE MEDICAL OFFICER, E.S.I. SERVICE DISPENSARY Vs. SHRI UMESH DIGAMBAR KHARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Revision by original Respondents challenging legality of judgment and order passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 9 of 1987 by the Labour Court, Kolhapur, whereby they are directed to reinstate their employee with continuity of service and full back wages of 25 months. Admittedly, present Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) was recommended by Kolhapur Employment Exchange for the post of Compounder to be filled in E.S.I. Service Dispensary of Kolhapur. Petitioner No. 1 is Administrative Officer of E.S.I. Scheme and Petitioner No. 2 is Medical Officer of E.S.I. Service Dispensary (hereinafter referred to as Respondents (1) and (2). The Complainant was interviewed on 16th November 1985. Respondent No. 2 then appointed the Complainant from 20th November 1985 onwards on the post of compounder vide letter dated 18th November 1985. It is stated in letter that he is appointed temporarily. Respondent No. 2 then issued office order dated 20th November 1985 stating terms and conditions of Complainant's service. Clause (3) thereof says that the Complainant is appointed temporarily and will be terminated after his work or behaviour is found to be unsatisfactory. Likewise, he is liable to be terminated without reason and without previous notice. The Complainant then joined on 22nd December 1985, Respondent No. 2 then terminated his service on 31st October 1986 stating that his temporary services are extinguished.

(2.) THE Complainant filed above complaint on 12th January 1987 alleging that he was found qualified in interview and appointed thereafter. Period of his appointment was never stated in the appointment order although it was stated that his appointment is temporarily. Previously one Shri Powar was working as compounder but was transferred to Sholapur on his own request and then he (the Complainant) was appointed on the vacant post. Later on Shri Powar was again transferred to Kolhapur. He (the Complainant) then requested Respondent No. 2 not to discontinue his services. However, he was terminated with effect from 31st October 1986.

(3.) ACCORDING to the Complainant, therefore, Respondents 1 and 2 have indulged into unfair labour practices under clauses (a), (b), (d) and (f) of item 1 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. Eventually, he prayed for requisite declaration of unfair labour practice, direction to reinstate him with continuity of service and other consequential benefits.