AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.R. Dongaonkar, J.—By this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, in I.D.A. Reference Case No. 67/1990 dated 4.8.1993 whereby following 3rder was passed:
Award Reference is answered in affirmative. An employee is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages with effect from 18.12.1986.
Award be sent to Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur for publication. No order as to costs.
It appears that respondent No. 1 was held entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages w.e.f. 18.12.1986, as his termination was found to be not in accordance with rules.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is totally incorrect and perverse to the record; inasmuch as the appointment of the respondent No. 1 was on purely temporary basis as Driver and maximum for six months. His appointment was on daily wages and same could be terminated without assigning any reason and giving any notice, such undertaking was also taken from him. Relevant undertaking reads:
I know that my services on the post of driver under the Zilla Parishad being temporary, can be terminated without assigning any reason or giving any prior notice. On this understanding I am accepting this appointment".
Therefore, according to him, it was beyond the scope and powers of the Labour Court to pass the order of reinstatement with full back wages as ordered.
As stated above, none appears for respondent No. 1.
It is evident on perusal of the appointment order of the respondent No. 1 that his name is stated at serial No. 8. Order of appointment seems to be dated 9.7.1986. It reads.-The following candidates (which includes respondent No. 1) are appointed as Drivers temporarily on daily wages. The condition No. 2 of that appointment order reads thus:
2-Appointment are made for a maximum period of 6 months as per powers conferred on the Chief Executive Officer. But if found necessary their services can be terminated even before the above period without assigning any reason or giving any notice. In that respect they shall have to give a written undertaking as below.
The learned Counsel for petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent No. 1 had allowed his Tipper to be driven by Conductor who had caused accident, though there was no loss to any life. Letter issued in consequence to the explanation offered by respondent No. 1 seems to have been filed on record wherein it is mentioned that respondent No. 1 had admitted that he had been negligent in leaving keys with the tipper. The relevant termination order reads thus:
No.
K.V./1736/1986
Office of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Works)
Sub Division, Aheri
Dated: 24.12.1986
To
Shri Mutta Durga Sadmek, Driver
Subject: Regarding accident to Tipper No. M.T.G. 6104 on 17.12.1986 at 6.00 P.M.
REFERENCE: This office letter No. Q-2 dated 18.12.1986 similarly the order dated 19.12.1986 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli...
Your explanation to the letter referred to above having been received you yourself are responsible for the accident caused. As per order of the Chief Executive Officer, dated 19.12.1986, you are removed from service with effect form 18.12.1986. You are directed to return to this office immediately all the articles pertaining to Tipper No. M.T.G. 6104 in your possession.
sd/-
Sub-Divisional Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Construction
Sub-Division, Aheri
Copy to:
(1) The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli for information.
(2) The Executive Engineer (Construction) Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli for information and necessary action with compliments.
sd/-
Sub-Divisional Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Construction
Sub-Division, Aheri
It may be seen that the explanation shows that respondent No. 1 was responsible for the accident caused and therefore, his services as Driver were terminated. Needless to say that the appointment of the respondent was on temporary basis and daily wages, with the undertaking that the same could be terminated even without assigning any reason and it was maximum for six months. There is nothing on record to suggest different view. It is not known further the said appointment was by following due process of recruitment. In view of the matter no other inference except that, the award and judgment by learned Labour Court does not sustain at law, can be drawn. Same is to be quashed and set aside. Therefore, the petition succeeds. It is allowed, ordered accordingly.