Manjulaben Kalabhai Zinzuwadiya vs Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board

S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.—Heard Mr. Gogia, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

The Petitioner, has challenged the order and award dated 4.1.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No. 3 of 1992, whereunder the Reference is rejected on account of the Petitioner failure in the examination and breach of the policy. It was the case of the Petitioner before the Court that she was appointed as Junior Clerk and her name was forwarded from the Employment Exchange. After holding interview, she was appointed on the recommendation of the selection committee on 7.1.1989 and she came to be appointed as Junior Clerk under order dated 28.6.1990 in the pay-scale of Rs. 950-1500. The initial appointment order was conditional and only for a period of 3 months. She resumed the duties on 28.6.1990. The order of initial appointment of 3 months was extended for the further period of six months and once again it was extended for 3 months and ultimately her service was terminated w.e.f. 16.10.1991 without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. She has in this petition challenged her termination under Articles 16, 11 and 12 of the Constitution.

The Respondent filed written statement contending that the Petitioner was offered conditional appointment on 26.6.1990. The probation was extended as per the service regulations and the Jr. Clerks are required to pass prescribed Pre-Service training examination, which is popularly known as Pre-Service Training Examination, within stipulated time and stipulated period. Despite ample chances available, the Petitioner could not pass the same, which has resulted into termination, which was impugned in the said Reference. The Court has recorded findings that the Petitioner admitted during her cross-examination that she was sent for pre-service training and she had appeared in the examination also. She has also admitted to have appeared on all 4 times in the examination and in all 4 occasions, she could not pass the examination. The Court has concluded that there was no breach of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. This award and order is challenged before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The facts of the case as could be seen from the judgment and award would go to show that the Petitioner was in fact appointed on specific condition of passing examination. The appointment was to be governed by several Resolutions which stipulated that such appointees have to pass the Pre-Service Training Examination. As the Petitioner despite given 4 chances of passing examination, could not pass examination. The employment can be said to be governed by Section 2(oo) (bb) and as the condition has not been complied with, the employment has come to an end, that cannot be said to be retrenchment, so as to attract the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Moreover, there are series of judgments of the Apex Court, which show that when there are specific service regulations applicable, the same would be governed the employees and such employee would not be entitled to attract the provisions of Section 25-F to defeat the purpose of service regulations like passing of pre-service training examination and suitably (sic suitability) test.

In view of this, the Court is of the view that the award impugned does not suffer from any perversity, so as to call for any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition deserves to be rejected with no order as to costs.