1.0 The above petitions filed by the petitioner-Corporation as well as the respondents workmen are directed against the judgement and award dated 29.09.2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamnagar whereby the Labour Court partly allowed the references of the respondents declaring that the respondents were illegally retrenched and therefore ordered to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.25000/- in lieu of reinstatement to the respondents.
2.0 The petitioner, which is a local self government body, employed respondents-workmen purely on temporary on month to month basis for duty of 4 hours a day at monthly rate of Rs.900/- per month. The petitioner issued such employment orders on monthly basis.
3.0 The respondents workmen raised demands for confirmation which were referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that the appointment of the respondents workmen were backdoor entry. The respondents therefore approached this Court wherein the petitioner was asked to give them an opportunity when the process of fresh appointment is undertaken on permanent basis.
3.1 The petitioner complied with the directions, but the respondents did not possess the required qualification and therefore not selected for the post in question. The respondents therefore approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court passed the aforesaid order of payment of lumpsum amount. Therefore the present petitions came to be filed.
4.0 Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondents workman were never appointed after following due selection process nor were they appointed on any clear vacancy. Their demand was illegal and the Labour Court ought not to have awarded the compensation.
5.0 As a result of hearing and perusal of the record it is evident that the respondents were undertaking essential services for carry out work of petitioner. The finding of the Labour Court is that the respondents have worked for more than 240 days in the previous 12 months of their service. Therefore the Labour Court recorded a finding that provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would be applicable and the respondents workmen have been illegally retrenched from the services. On these facts the Labour Court also found that section 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act, is not applicable in view of the special service of the respondents.
6.0 Thus the finding is that the petitioner has violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. However, the Labour Court has not ordered for reinstatement and only compensation was ordered to be paid. It is also required to be noted that the workmen cannot claim appointment without requisite qualification. There is nothing on record to show that they possess requisite qualification. Learned advocate for the respondent is not in a position to point out anything from the record that the respondents workmen are entitled for higher compensation. Even on this ground also the petitions filed by the workmen deserves to be dismissed. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the Labour Court. No case is made out to cause interference. Hence the petitions are dismissed.
7.0 A copy of this order shall be kept in each matter.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru* Top