Gendalbhai Bhavabhai Chauhan vs Deputy Executive Engineer G.W.R.D.C.

V.M. Sahai, J.—We have heard Mr. K.J. Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the Appellant.

This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging the judgment dated 10.08.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 6599 of 2002 by which the writ petition has been allowed and award dated 28.09.2001 passed by the Labour Court, Nadiad in Reference (LCN) No. 532 of 1990 has been set aside.

The Appellant was engaged as a Contractor by the Respondent Corporation for operating and maintaining the tube-wells at village Rasikpura by two agreements dated 01.11.1985 and 1.11.1986. The contract period as per the second contract came to an end on 31.10.1987. After the expiry of second contract, to ensure water supply to the farmers, the Appellant was asked to continue to carry on the work on the same terms and conditions unless and until third contract is entered into between the parties. The Appellant filed writ petition seeking relief that he may not be terminated from service. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, the Petitioner had alternative remedy before the Labour Court. The Appellant raised industrial dispute and the Labour Court has allowed the claim and directed reinstatement with continuity of service without back wages. The learned Single Judge has held as under:

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 and 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.

We agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and we do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. This appeal is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed.