The petitioner claims that, he was a temporary employee, who was terminated from service without granting him either salary or any other benefits. The termination itself is challenged as being arbitrary. It is to be noticed that the petitioner was terminated in the year 1999.
2. The petitioner had approached the Labour Court and the Consumer Disputes Reddressal Forum with the very same prayers. The claim made before the Consumer Disputes Redressal W.P(C). No.31253 of 2004-U 2 Forum was rejected by Ext.P7 on the ground that the issue raised is not a consumer dispute. Before the Labour Court, an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for brevity, the Act of 1947] was filed, which was rejected by Ext.P6, finding that the Panchayat, would not be an establishment covered under the Act of 1947. Ext.P6 order of the Labour Court is dated 31.01.2004 and the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dismissed the complaint by Ext.P7 dated 11.08.2000.
3. The writ petition has been filed after the dismissal of the application before the Labour Court. By that time, the petitioner had been out of service for more than five years. There was no interim order granted in the writ petition. The petitioner hence had not challenged his termination for long years. The W.P(C). No.31253 of 2004-U 3 application made before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the Labour Court was only for recovery of money. Hence, the termination of 1999 cannot be challenged in this writ petition of 2004 and the proceedings before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum or the Labour Court, having not specifically challenged the termination, cannot be termed to be bonafide proceedings, to save the gross delay occasioned.
4. Further, the petitioner, but for producing Exts.P1&P2, does not produce anything to substantiate his contention that he was entitled to be continued or that he was not paid the salary, while he was in employment. The contentions of the Panchayat as evidenced from Ext.P6 is also that several persons were appointed as daily wage workers during the period and the petitioner was only one of them, W.P(C). No.31253 of 2004-U 4 and that the petitioner does not have any right to be continued in such employment.
The writ petition is found to be devoid of merit for all the above reasons and the same is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.
//True Copy// P.A. to Judge.
sp/19/01/16