THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND CIVIL SURGEON, CIVIL HOSPITAL Vs. CHANDA RADHO KINJALE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Revision by Original Respondent challenging legality of common judgment and order passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 327 to 300, 332, 333 and 335 to 339 of 1996 by the Labour Court, Kolhapur, whereby they are directed not to terminate services of Original Complainants, without following due process of law. Present Respondents 1 to 11 (hereinafter referred to as Original Complainants) filed above referred complaints in the Labour Court, Kolhapur to restrain present petitioners (hereinafter referred to as Original Respondents) from terminating their services and further to cancel proposed orders of their termination.

(2.) IT is case of all Original Complainants that they were initially appointed for a period of 30 days at a time to work as a staff nurse. Their such appointments were continued from time to time. Lastly, they were appointed by order dated 26th July 1996 on regular pay -scale without specifying period of their appointments. Thus, they have worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Besides, they are working on permanent sanctioned posts and doing work of (sic) nature. As such, they have acquired status and privileges of a permanent employee. However, Respondents then intended to terminate them malafidely. No seniority list is published. As such, their proposed termination amounts to illegal retrenchment. Moreover, no retrenchment compensation is offered to them and principles of last come first go is not followed. According to the Complainants, therefore their proposed termination is an unfair labour practice under items 1(a) 9(b), (d) and (f) of Sch. IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The Complainants then claimed requisite declaration, direction to Original Respondents not to terminate their services and further to cancel proposed termination.

(3.) IT is further case of the Respondents that staff -nurses were urgently required in their Hospital and, therefore, respective Complainants were appointed by Respondent No. 1 Dy. Director purely on temporary basis as a stop -gap arrangement. The Complainants were appointed by order dated 26th July 1996 as a special case and especially in anticipation that Government will approve their recruitment. But Government did not approve their appointment and recruitment. As such, Complainants appointment orders dated 26th July 1996 were modified by Director of Health services, Mumbai directing that they will be discontinued after 6 months by new order dated 19th October 1996. The Complainants are not selected and recommended by Selection Board and, therefore, their services cannot be regularised.