Petitioner-workman is before this Court being aggrieved by award and order dated 19.11.2009 passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Mehsana in Reference (LCM) No.11 of 2008 (Old No. being of 5 of 1994). The learned Judge of the Labour Court partly allowed the reference and ordered the employer - Shri Vidyotejak Mandal Abhinav High School, Sidhpur, to pay an amount of Rs.7500/- as lump sum compensation for his rights for service.
2. Learned advocate Mr.Pathak for the petitioner submitted that the learned Judge has committed an error in not awarding reinstatement though the learned Judge has recorded that the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were required to be observed.
3. The learned advocate for the petitioner read the entire award, including the reasoning part thereof, wherein the learned Judge of the Labour Court has first narrated the facts of the case and has then considered the submissions made by both the parties and the decision of this Court in the matter of Ashraf Abdul Mubin Yayman Vs. State of Gujarat, in Special Civil Application No.8874 of 1999 dated 21.01.2000.
The learned Judge of the Labour Court has specifically recorded that the institution is a 'grant in aid institution' and the establishment of that institution is required to be sanctioned by the Government and appointments are to be made on such establishment according to the rules and regulations applicable to the same. Besides that it is also mentioned that in the event there is any vacancy, surplus staff is to be transferred by the Office of the District Education Officer. It appears that the learned Judge of the Labour Court has recorded that the petitioner-workman was kept for 'filling in water' 'for an hour'. The learned Judge has also recorded that the petitioner is not able to produce any material in support of his contention that he was employed by the respondent-institution. The learned Judge has specifically referred to the deposition of the petitioner workman, exh.12 and cross-examination of the deponent wherein it is stated by the petitioner-workman that, 'he got his name registered with the Regional Employment Exchange; he was not sent for interview by the Employment Exchange and he was not interviewed. He has also stated that he does not remember the date of his interview. He has also stated that he does not have any appointment letter.
The learned Judge of the Labour Court has referred to the certificate, Mark 17/2 and another certificate, Mark 17/4. The learned advocate for the petitioner made available for perusal these two documents. One document is dated 17th August 1991, the other document is dated 27th November 1992. Contents of both the documents are identical, except the period mentioned therein. It is stated in the document that it is a certificate issued under the signature of Acharya (Principal) of Shri Vidyotejak Mandal Abhinav High School, Sidhpur. The document reads to the effect that, "This is to certify that Shri Avinash Manuprasad Dave had rendered his services in the school as a daily wager for the last one year."
Good wishes for his progress are also conveyed by that certificate. In the second certificate, in place of the period one year, period mentioned is of two years. The last phrase used in the certificate is indicative of the fact that this certificate is obtained for production at the time of seeking employment in future.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner invited attention of this Court to the following decisions:
(1) in the matter of "ANOOP SHARMA VS. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION NO.1, PANIPAT(HARYANA)", reported in (2010) 5 SCC 497. The learned Advocate for the petitioner pressed into service head note-A of the said judgment;
(2) in the matter of "MADHYA PRADESH ADMINISTRATION VS. TRIBHUBAN", reported in (2007) 9 SCC 748;
(3) in the matter of "M/S. HINDUSTAN TIN WORKS PVT. LTD. VS. EMPLOYEES OF HINDUSTAN TIN WORKS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.", reported in AIR 1979 SC 75. The learned Advocate relied on the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which are quoted in headnote-A. He also relied on the contents of Para-4 of the said judgment; and (4) in the matter of "GAMON INDIA LTD. VS.
NIRANJAN DAS", reported in 1984 AIR 500.
4. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the order in Special Civil Application No.8874 of 1999 dated 21.01.2000 is with regard to seeking regularisation and the same ought not to have made applicable by the learned Judge of the Labour Court. The submission is without merit for the reason that this Court has rightly observed in the order that, " .. .. If such persons are to be regularized on full-time basis, the other eligible candidates waiting for public employment shall never get a chance to compete for appointment to the lowest post of peon also. I do not, therefore, consider the claim made by the petitioner to be just and proper. Petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. Notice is discharged. .. .."
5. In the present case as the facts are mentioned by the learned Judge, the petitioner-workman was employed for one hour on payment of Rs.200/- per month and that payment was made on the basis of vouchers, which seem to have been produced before the Labour Court vide marks 16/1 to 16/6. The learned advocate for the petitioner does not have copies of those vouchers. Be that as it may. The question remains whether the order of the learned Judge can be found fault with when he awarded compensation of Rs.7,500/- in lieu of the rights of the petitioner. The answer is in negative. Therefore, the petition is dismissed having found no substance in the matter. Notice is discharged.
(RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.) karim Top