SARVAJANIK NIRMAN MAZDOOR SANGH Vs. JUDGE LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28 Nov. 1994 in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 392/85 filed by the petitioner- appellants whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners against the award passed by the learned labour court, Udaipur (Annexure-1) dated 16. 4. 84 by which the reference was answered against the petitioner and the workmen.

(2.) BOTH the learned counsel court as well as learned Single Judge have held that the workmen-appellants No. 2 and 3 worked in different units, and therefore, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act are not attracted in their case. The counsel for the petitioner appellants has submitted that irrespective of different Units the employer in the case of workmen is the same.

(3.) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the workmen were employed in the workshop of the Electricity Sub-Division, Bhilwara in November 1977 till July 1978. Thereafter, in August 1978 they were on the muster role of the East City, Subdivision Bhilwara. In February 1979 they were reappointed in the East City Division, Bhilwara on Muster Roll where they continued to work up to August 1979 and their services were terminated on account of stoppage of work, and therefore, after the termination of their services at the City East Sub-Division, Bhilwara of the Electricity Department the petitioner-appellants were appointed on muster roll in the Electricity Sub-Division West of Bhilwara. After the termination of their services from Sub-division West they were given fresh appointment in the City Sub-Division, Bhilwara from February 1980 to May 1980 when their services were finally terminated. The learned labour court in its award held that the appointment of the petitioner-workmen was in different Units and the appointing authorities of the said Units were different persons. It was, therefore, held that the workmen did not complete 240 days in the same establishment and therefore, their case was not covered by the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.