Executive Engineer vs A. D. Makrani

K.A. Puj, J.—ThePetitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the award passed by the Labour Court, Himmatnagar in LCH No. 34 of 1996 dated 30.1.2001.

Thepetition was admitted by this Court and rule was issued on 7.9.2001. While admitting the petition the Court has observed that identical petition was filed by the Electricity Company and interim relief was granted. The Court has also observed that this petition is to be heard alongwith Special Civil Application Nos. 4896, 4898, 4900, 4901, 4902, 4903 and 4904 of 2001. All these petitions came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 16.1.2006 and the award passed by the Labour Court was quashed and set aside. So far as present petition is concerned, despite service of notice nobody appears on behalf of the Respondent and hence the petition could not be disposed off. Till this date no one has filed any appearance on behalf of the Petitioner and hence no useful purpose would be served by adjourning the matter time and again.

Heard Mr. S.N. Sinha, learned advocate appearing for the Petitioner and perused the memo of petition, impugned award and the documents attached therewith.

It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent was working in the Petitioner Board as a daily wage labourer. He has neither completed 240 days in any calendar year nor having completed 960 days in the period of four consecutive years. This was a mandatory requirement as per Establishment Circular No. 446. The Labour Court found that the Respondent has been terminated without complying provisions of Section 25(f) of Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, while allowing the reference directed the Petitioner to reinstate the Respondent with full backwages.

Mr. Sinha, learned advocate appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the presumption drawn by the Labour Court is contrary to the documentary evidence which was produced by the Petitioner showing Nominal Master Roll with regard to the Petitioner. As per the said documentary evidence produced at Ex.25/4, the Respondent had worked as daily wage basis as under:

Sr.No. Year No. of working days 1 1983 141 2 1984 156 3 1985 176 4 1986 046 5 1987 039 Total 558 6. He has further submitted that the Respondent was on Nominal Master Roll as dailywager with effect from March, 1983 to September, 1987 and that he was carrying out the loading and unloading work in Truck No. GRM-3235. The Respondent has also admitted before the Labour Court that he was paid for those days on which he had worked. These facts clearly establish that during the period from 1983 to 1987 the Respondent had not worked 240 days in a calendar year.

Mr. Sinha further submitted that thePetitioner Board had issued a Circular dated 14.2.1985, which says that the employees who were at Nominal Master Roll, for regularization of their services, if a person has worked for 240 days in a year or has worked for 960 days with the Board in four years of continuous service then such employee can be regularized. In the present case the Respondent does not fulfill these two conditions. Mr. Sinha further submitted that this Court has already disposed of Special Civil Application Nos. 4896, 4898, 4900, 4901, 4902, 4903 and 4904 of 2001 which came to be allowed and award passed by the Labour Court was quashed and set aside. He has, therefore, submitted that following the said decision of this Court, the present petition be allowed and rule be made absolute.

Having considered submissions of Mr. Sinha and having gone through the impugned award as well as the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 4896 of 2001 and other matters, the Court is of the view that there is no question of granting backwages. Had the Respondent appeared before the Court and placed adequate material and/or submissions in support of reinstatement the Court would have considered his request. However, despite service of notice the Respondent had chosen not to appear before the Court. This gives rise to presumption that he is not interested in reinstatement or he might be working somewhere else. Even otherwise, after 2006 there are many judgments of the Apex Court that a person who is a dailywager and who has not completed 240 days in a calender year and has worked only for limited period of two to three years he is not entitled to reinstatement. Considering all these aspects, the Court is of the view that the award passed by the Labour Court deserves to be quashed and set aside in respect of backwages as well as reinstatement. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. This petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute without any order as to costs.