Sharanappa Bhimarao Mokashi and Others vs The Deputy Director of Horticulture and Others

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Petitioners, aggrieved by the rejection of their claim petitions in Reference Nos. 132/1995, 135/1995, 1/1996, 4/1996 and 9/1996 by common Award dated 12.8.2006 of the Labour Court, Bijapur, have preferred this petition invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners claiming to have worked as daily wagers in the Horticulture Department of the Government of Karnataka during the years 1977, 1984 and 1987 and alleging to have been terminated from service there after wards, initiated conciliation proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short ''the Act''], which resulted in the State Government issuing orders, referring the industrial disputes for adjudication before the Labour Court, Bijapur.

In the trial before the Labour Court, while petitioners and their witness were examined as WWs, xerox copies of the objections were introduced. in evidence as Exhibits. W1 to W5 and copy of the legal notice as Ex. W6, while for the respondents, two witnesses were examined as MWs 1 and 2 and Exhibits M1 to M13 marked.

The Labour Court, having regard to the material on record, observed that there was no material whatsoever constituting substantial legal evidence of the fact that the petitioners 1 to 4 amongst others, worked in the Horticulture Department at any time as ''daily wagers'' while there was material to show that the name of petitioner No. 5-Aminsab Bandagisab Ukkali -claimant in Ref. No. 9/1996 was included in the nominal muster roll for 68 days during the year 1983 and for 228 days during the year 1984 but had not worked continuously for 240 days in twelve calendar months. In addition, the Labour Court observed that there was no material to establish the exact date on which petitioner No. 5 was terminated from service, even though claimed to have been terminated from service on 1.11.1987. The Labour Court, by the Award impugned, dismissed the claim petitions and rejected the references.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Labour Court committed an error in recording a finding that there was no material to establish employer-employee relationship between the petitioners 1 to 4 and the State of Karnataka while petitioner No. 5 having placed material on record to establish the jural relationship, there was no justification for the Labour Court to reject the reference.

Per contra, learned Government Advocate and learned counsel for respondent-Zilla Panchayat, seek to sustain the Award impugned as being well merited, fully justified and not calling for interference.

Learned Government Advocate places reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka and Another Vs. Ravi Kumar, to buttress his arguments that even if there was jural relationship between petitioner No. 5 and the State of Karnataka, nevertheless, there being no record to establish that the petitioner No. 5 did discharge duties after the year 1984, being a state claim put forth in the year 1993, deserves to be rejected.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the Award impugned, there can be no more doubt that petitioners 1 to 4 did not muster evidence in support of their claim of having discharged duties as ''daily wagers'' on nominal muster roll until their termination from service on 1.10.1978, 25.11.1987, 1.10.1987 and 1.10.1978 respectively, as indicated in the points of reference made by the State Government in Reference Nos. 132/1995, 135/1995, 1/1996 and 4/1996. Except for the self serving statement of the petitioners, there was no evidence worth the while to substantiate their claim. In the oral testimony of WW.6 said to be Horticulture Assistant, claiming to have joined services in the year 1975 in the Horticulture Department, worked upto 1986 and was recognized as monthly rated worker entitled to regularization in the year 1990, it was elicited that he did not know the period of service of the petitioners nor as to whether there was any work available in the Department or that claimants had put in work for a period of 240 days in the year.

As regards claim of the petitioners 1 to 4, on fair consideration of the material on record, the Award impugned is well merited, fully justified on the material available on record and they are neither shown to suffer from any infirmity nor substantiated to be based on no evidence or vitiated on account of perversity. of approach, to call for a different conclusion and interfere with the verdict.

Insofar as it relates to claim of petitioner No. 5 to have served as a ''daily wager'' in the nominal muster roll during the year 1973-74, the oral testimony of MW1-C. Basavaraj, Office Superintendent, Deputy Director of Horticulture, Bijapur, is in the direction of establishing that the said petitioner worked for 68 days during the year 1983 and for 228 days during the year 1984 and that in the nominal muster roll, it was shown that petitioner No. 5 was absent on every Sunday and was not paid any wages for those days. Except for oral testimony of MW.1, there is not a titter of evidence to establish the fact that petitioner No. 5 did serve the Horticulture Department prior to the year 1983 and after 1984 up to 1.11.1987 when he was allegedly terminated from service.

The finding of the Labour Court that there was no material to establish continuous service for 240 days during the period of twelve calendar months by the petitioner No. 5 and therefore disentitled to any relief, cannot be characterized as perverse or illegal so as to call for interference in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.

The Apex Court in Ravikumar''s case [supra], having regard to the facts and circumstances stated therein, being a claim that the workman on daily wage basis from the year 1979 having worked in the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, MLB Canal, Ramdurg Sub-Division, continued to work till 14.11.1984 when his services was discontinued, the Apex Court observed that dispute was a state claim made after 14 years hence relief was denied to the workman. Applying the very same observations to the case of petitioner No. 5 was a state claim and therefore the Labour Court was fully justified in rejecting his claim. Looking at it from any angle, I find no merit in the petition and is accordingly rejected.