AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 1-3-2006 (Annexure - P/4) passed by the Labour Court, Ambikapur, in case No. 94/ID Act/2004 Ref., whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to allow him to join in service on the post of Jeep Driver.
The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that initially the petitioner was appointed as Jeep Driver by order dated 8-5-1998 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the respondent No. 2 herein, on daily wages basis for a period of 89 days. Thereafter, from time to time, by several orders, the service period of the petitioner was extended till 24-5-2001. According to the petitioner, the petitioner rendered his services in the respondent Department for about four years without any gap i.e. for the period from 8-5-1998 to 16-9-2002 with utmost satisfaction of his higher authorities and there is no complaint against him. However, on 16-9-2002, all of a sudden the respondent No. 2 orally terminated the petitioner from service. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an application before the Labour Commissioner. The Labour Commissioner referred the matter to the Labour Court, on 1- 3-2004 (Annexure - P/2). Before the Labour Court the petitioner filed statement of claim. The Labour Court rejected the claim of the petitioner by order dated 1-3- 2006 (Annexure - P/4). Thus, this petition.
Shri Prajapati, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the Labour Court without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in its letter and spirit rejected the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner rendered his services in the respondent Department without any gap for about four years i.e. for more than 240 days. Learned Counsel would further submit that without affording proper opportunity of hearing and without issuing show cause notice the petitioner has been removed from the service, which is against the principles of natural justice. Learned Counsel prays that the respondent authorities may be directed to allow the petitioner to join the service on the post of Jeep Driver.
I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto.
Admittedly the petitioner was never appointed in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment, as the appointment of the petitioner was not through proper selection process. Without inviting applications from the eligible candidates the petitioner has been appointed on daily wages basis for a period of 89 days and looking to the requirement of service of the petitioner the same was extended from time to time for 89 days (Annexure - P/1 colly.). The appointment of the petitioner is not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment.
It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been retrenched without granting retrenchment allowance under the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act, 1947"). It is also not further case of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to grant of benefit under the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, 1947. However, on perusal of the pleadings and the impugned order, it appears that the learned Labour Court has not considered and recorded any finding with regard to the issue asto whether the petitioner had worked for 240 days or more in a year or in the preceding year before the petitioner was removed from service and further whether the petitioner was entitled to retrenchment allowance or not.
In view of foregoing, the matter is remitted back to the Labour Court restoring the case to the original file with a direction that the Labour Court shall consider the issue afresh, as stated above, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. Having regard to the facts situation of the case, when the matter is pending consideration since March, 2004 it is expedient that the Labour Court shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
In the result, the petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs.