DAYANIDHI SAHU Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner-workman challenges the award dated 5th December, 1997 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur in I.D. Case No. 66 of 1994 for not granting any relief as prayed for by the petitioner-workman. The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner joined as Night Watchman on 7.10.1984 in Naktideul P.W.D. (R & B) Section in the district of Sambalpur on daily wage basis. While Continuing as such, in the year 1989, the petitioner was working at the residence of Junior Engineer as per the direction of the authority. While continuing as such, the petitioner did not agree to do certain house hold work, for which the Junior Engineer became annoyed and deducted Rs. 60/- from his wages after obtaining signature on the stamped receipt. Thereafter, he also stopped paying wages to the petitioner for the months of November and December, 1990 and on 13th January, 1991 he told the petitioner that his service has been terminated. The petitioner protested the said high handed action of the Junior Engineer and also approached the Assistant Engineer, but to no avail. Finding no other way, the petitioner filed an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Sambalpur on 30th January, 1991. Instead of several letters issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Sambalpur, the Junior Engineer did not appear. Accordingly, the conciliation proceeding failed and report was submitted on 3rd November, 1993. On the other hand, while conciliation proceeding was pending, a meeting was held oh 20th November, 1992 with many other officers and office bearers of the association of the petitioner's in the Office of the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. (R. & B) Division, Deogarh to consider the case of the petitioner along with four other workmen. In the said meeting, it was decided that the Executive Engineer will inquire into the matter and take necessary steps accordingly. Thereafter, the other four workmen were reinstated into service and the case of the petitioner was not considered. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Labour Court oh the following reference:

(2.) In the said reference, the opposite parties filed their written statement and contested the case taking a stand that neither any appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner as a Night Watchman nor any written order terminating his service from 14th January, 1991 was issued. The claim made by the applicant regarding his service are all vague, false and imaginary. The D.L.Rs. are being engaged through contractor on daily wage basis as and when required for a particular work and after completion of that work, the D.L.Rs. are automatically disengaged and this practice was a stop gap arrangement to meet the exigencies of governmental work. The P.W.D. (R & B) Department is a Government organization which is governed by Rules and Regulations and therefore, it cannot be treated as an Industry. As such, the claim of the workman is not maintainable.

(3.) On the basis of the above-pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed as many as four issues which are quoted hereunder: