MUNICIPAL BOARD PRATAPGARH Vs. LABOUR COURT BHILWARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners against the respondents on February 21, 2002 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned judgment and award dated 3/11/2001 (Annexure 1) passed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara (respondent No. 1) by which respondents No. 2 to 5 (Suresh Kumar, Fateh Singh, Manoj Dhobi and Ramaju Meena respectively) were ordered to be reinstated in service without back wages be quashed and set aside.

(2.) In nutshell, the facts of the present case are that the respondents No. 2 to 5 were engaged as daily wage employees of the Municipal Board, Pratapgarh on 1/08/1991, April 1, 198 4/01/1994 and 8/07/1980 respectively, but appointments were not given to them after following the regular process of selection and they were appointed purely on daily wage basis. The respondent No. 3 Fateh Singh and respondent No. 5 Ramaju Meena were working as gardener on part time basis and they were engaged for fixed term. The services of respondents No. 2 to 5 were terminated by the petitioners with effect from 2/05/1997 on the ground that no work was required from them. Thereafter the Government through notification dated 8/12/1990 made a reference to the Labour Court, Bhilwara (respondent No. 1) to the effect whether termination of services of respondents No. 2 to 5 was valid or not? Thereafter the respondents No. 2 to 5 filed claim before the Labour Court. The petitioners contested the claim filed by the respondents No. 2 to 5 and submitted reply. 8. The learned Labour Court, Bhilwara after hearing both the parties passed impugned award dated 3/11/2001 (Annexure 1) by which the respondents No. 2 to 5 were ordered to be reinstated in service without back wages. Hence, this writ petition with the above mentioned prayer.

(3.) In this writ petition, the main submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the respondents No. 2 to 5 were not appointed by regular process of selection, but were engaged in service dehors the Rules on part time basis and for a particular period and, therefore, they were not entitled to any protection of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 and further more, since the work for which they were engaged on part time basis had come to an end, therefore, in these circumstances, the termination order was rightly passed against the respondents No. 2 to 5 and the findings of the Labour Court in this respect are perverse and should be set aside.