1. By way of these petitions, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh in Reference (LCJ) No.172/2005 and 143/2005 dated 20.05.2011, whereby, the said reference was partly allowed and the petitioners were awarded lump-sum compensation of Rs.20,000/-.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent was serving as Helper in the office of respondent no. 1. It is the case of the petitioners that their services were orally terminated on 01.04.2005 without giving any notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation. Therefore, the petitioners raised an industrial dispute, which, ultimately, culminated into a reference before the Court below. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence on record, partly allowed the reference by passing the impugned award. Hence, these petitions.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. It has been mainly contended that the order of termination passed by the respondent - Nagarpalika is illegal and bad in law. In support of his submission he had place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation AIR 2010 SC 1116.
4. It appears from the record that before terminating the services of the petitioners, the respondent Nagarpalika has followed the due process of law. However, the petitioners were not in a position to establish from the record that the respondent Nagarpalika had not followed the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. In fact it is a matter on record that the respondent Nagarpalika has also paid lump sum compensation to the petitioners. It also appears from the record that the petitioners were not appointed after following due process of law. The petitioners were not able to show from the record that their appointment was made pursuant to any public advertisement. In this connection it would be relevant to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Amreli Municipality v. Gujarat Pradesh Municipal Employees Union, 2004 (3) G.L.R. 1841 wherein the Court has observed as under :-
(i) The Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to issue direction or pass an award regularising services of employees of a Municipality or local authority without there being any 'sanctioned set up' and no person can be regularised if such a person had entered service without following selection process under the title of daily rated employee.
5. Considering the facts of the case and the evidence on record and keeping in mind the observations made in the case of Amreli Municipality (supra), in my opinion, the respondent Nagarpalika has not committed any illegality or impropriety warranting interference of this Court. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given the Labour Court in the impugned award and hence, find no reasons to interfere with the same.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the petitions are dismissed summarily.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/ Top