1.0 By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.04.2011 passed by Presiding Officer CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference ITC No.20 of 1998 (Old) (Reference CGITA of 71 of 2004 (New) whereby the reference came to be dismissed.
2.0 According to the petitioner, he has been a workman of respondent No.1 since 01.04.1988 and his appointment was oral and he was working as wireman. According to him the respondent No.1issued a certificate stating that he was working in his department for the period from 1.4.1988 to 30.6.1989. The petitioner also claimed that he is in possession of various such certificates, but ultimately his services came to be terminated orally on 15.03.1994. He therefore raised a dispute which came to be referred for adjudication. The said reference was numbered as Reference ITC No.20 of 1998 (old) and thereafter new number was given as CGITA of 71 of 2004 (new). Ultimately the reference came to be rejected.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed by respondent No.1; that he worked for a period from 010.4.1988 to 30.06.1989; that a certificate to that effect was also issued; that the work done by the petitioner was of perennial in nature and he had been called for work of maintenance of electrical installation and there is ample evidence that the petitioner was called for work very regularly on continuation basis. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Madhya Pradesh Administration versus Tribunal in Civil Appeal No. 1817 of 2007 and in case of Bhilwara Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari S. Ltd versus Vinod Kumar Sharma in Civil Appeal No. 2585 of 2006.
4.0 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner at length and perused the documents on record. The finding of the Tribunal is that the petitioner had not been appointed by the respondent as an employee and he was provided short period work, since he was an electrician those works were assigned to him on casual basis and that after the end of the stipulated period of work he was not required to come to the premises. The Tribunal also found that not only the petitioner was working as electrician/wireman, but other persons were also doing the maintenance work of electrical equipment, including operation of pumps, etc. for different period and they were being paid likewise through vouchers for the different periods not assigned to the petitioner. Apart from that there is no evidence that the petitioner had ever worked 240 days continuously in any calendar year. It was also found that the work assigned to the petitioner under contractual order was not perennial in nature. The petitioner has failed to prove that he continuously worked for 240 days in any calendar year. Further, the decisions which have been relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner will apply in the present case.
5.0 Learned Advocate for the petitioner is not in a position to assail any of the findings of the Tribunal. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal.
6.0 In the premises aforesaid the petition is devoid of any merits. The same is therefore dismissed. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru* Top