Bhavnagar District Panchayat and Others vs Dharamshibhai Shivabhai

Honourable Mr. K.S. Jhaveri, J.—The captioned petitions have been preferred by the petitioner against judgment and award dated 06.07.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhavnagar in References (L.C.B.) Nos. 425 of 1989 to 430 of 1989 and 476 of 1989 to 479 of 1989 whereby the references of the respondents came to be partly allowed by directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondents-workmen in service without continuity and with compensation of Rs. 3000/- each to the respondents-workmen in lieu of continuity of service and backwages. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents herein were provided work purely on temporary, adhoc and daily wage basis between 1981 and 1988 under the Scheme of State Government where DDT and insecticides are sprayed during the months of monsoon every year depending upon the requirement. The respondents had never completed 240 days in any of the year. However, the respondents approached the Labour Court by way of filing references for reinstatement and backwages. The Labour Court passed award as stated hereinabove. Hence, these petitions.

While admitting the matters, stay was granted by this Court.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that there are no sanctioned permanent posts in the District Panchayat for the said work of spraying of DDT, insecticides and chemicals and the work is purely a temporary and seasonal nature and usually it is taken up during the months of monsoon. He further submitted that the respondents were not appointed by following regular recruitment procedure and was as such provided work depending upon the requirement during the season of monsoon as a daily wager on temporary and adhoc basis. Therefore, the respondents had no right to continuity of employment as well as continuity of work. He further submitted that the respondents had not worked for 240 days in any of the years and therefore, there is no violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the order of Labour Court is required to be quashed and set aside.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner further submitted that majority of the respondents have attained the age of superannuation and as per order of this Court, they have been granted wages as per the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Learned advocates for the respondents submitted that there is violation of Section 25(G) and 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 8 of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966. He further submitted that the Labour Court has granted only reinstatement without continuity of service and backwages and therefore, the respondents are deprived of their legitimate right to continue in the service.

Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. In the cross-examination at Exh. 35, the witness admitted that new workmen are called for seasonal work and they were paid the wages according to the rules. It is also deposed that respondents are not regular employees and seniority is not maintained. The respondents are not called for next seasonal work. Thus, it is established that the seniority of the respondents is not maintained by the petitioner and the respondents were not called upon for next seasonal work. Hence, there is breach of Section 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 8 of Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966. It is also established that there is breach of Section 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In that view of the matter, the contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner is devoid of merits and the petitions are dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. The respondents-workmen who have attained the age of superannuation will be paid their retirement dues and those who are in service will be reinstated within a period of one month from today.