AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.K. Rathod, J.—By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and award passed by the Labour
Court, Nadiad in Reference (LCN) No. 532/1990 dated 28.09.2001, whereby, the said reference was partly allowed and the petitioner has been
directed to reinstate the respondent on his original post with continuity of service but, without any back wages.
The facts in brief are that the respondent herein was engaged as a Contractor by the petitioner-Corporation for operating/maintaining the tube-
wells at Village Rasikpura vide two Agreements dated 01.11.1985 & 01.11.1986. As per the second Agreement, the contract period was to end
on 31.10.1987.
After expiry of the second contract period, the petitioner-Corporation undertook the process of making a new contract. However, to ensure
that water supply to the farmers is not affected during the intervening period, the respondent herein was asked to continue to carry on the work on
the same terms and conditions, until the new contract was awarded. In the meantime, the respondent filed S.C.A. No. 4401/1988 before this
Court. Initially, by way of ad-interim relief, the petitioner-Corporation was restrained from terminating the services of the respondent. However,
ultimately, the said petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 03.03.1989 by relegating the respondent to the remedy of raising an industrial
dispute under the provisions of the I.D. Act.
Thereafter, the respondent raised an industrial dispute, which, ultimately, culminated into a reference before the Labour Court. The Labour
Court, after hearing both the sides, passed the impugned award. Hence, this petition.
Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It is a matter of fact that the respondent was engaged
as a Contractor by two separate Agreements, viz. dated 01.11.1985 & 01.11.1986. However, the respondent was continued in work, after the
completion of the contract period, on account of the interim stay against his termination granted by this Court in S.C.A. No. 4401/1988 filed by
him. Subsequently, vide order dated 03.03.1989, the said petition came to be dismissed. In the said order dated 03.03.1989, it has been recorded
that pursuant to the vacation of ad-interim stay granted in favour of the respondent, his services came to be terminated by the petitioner. Even
otherwise, the work rendered by the respondent under the two different Agreements cannot be considered for counting 240 days, as contemplated
u/s 25B of the I.D. Act, since the said work was done in pursuance of a contract/agreement and not on the basis of any relationship of master -
servant. The Court below failed to appreciate the facts of the case in its proper perspective and committed serious illegality in clubbing the period
of work done by the respondent under the two different Agreements for calculating 240 days. Hence, the impugned award passed by the Court
below, being illegal and contrary to the settled principles of law, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned award dated 28.09.2001 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.