THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, MECHANICAL CIRCLE (U.S.), EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MECHANICAL DIVISION AND CHIEF ENGINEER (MECHANICAL), IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT Vs. SHILENDRA VASANTRAO PANDARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revisions are arising out of judgment and order passed in complaint (ULP) No. 208 of 1993 by the learned Labour Court, Kolhapur, whereby, an order of continuation in service with 50% back wages is made. Revision application (ULP) No. 223 of 2000 is filed by an employer challenging grant of 50% back wages, revision application (ULP) No. 226 of 2000 is filed by the employee challenging refusal of 50% back wages.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the Respondent of revision (ULP) No. 223 of 2000 who is Petitioner of revision (ULP) No. 226 of 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) was appointed as a Junior Engineer vide order dated 19th September 1991. His appointment order says that he is appointed, as per Government Resolution, being nominated and dependant of a freedom fighter. It further says that he is appointed for a period of 6 months. He then joined the services on 1st October 1991. He was then continued in service till 30th September 1992. His services then were terminated with effect from 27th November 1992.

(3.) PETITIONERS 1 to 3 of Revision (ULP) No. 223 of 2000 who are Respondents 1 to 3 of revision (ULP) No. 226 of 2000 (hereinafter referred to as Respondents 1 to 3) filed their written statement at Exh. 13 and 20 and traversed all material allegations made by the Complainant. It is contended, at the outset that the Complainant is not a workman as was appointed on the post of Junior Engineer. It is further contended that the Complainant was appointed for a specific periods. His services automatically came to an and by efflux of time and therefore, it is not necessary to comply provisions of section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947. Lastly, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.