1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the award dated 04.09.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Godhra in Reference [LCG] No. 167/2002, whereby the said reference was rejected.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was serving as work charge clerk with the respondent since 1983 and without following the due procedure, he was terminated from the services w.e.f. 26.07.2008. Therefore, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which, ultimately, culminated into a reference before the Court below. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence on record, rejected the said reference. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents on record. It appears that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on temporary and daily wage basis, depending upon the availability of work and funds. At the relevant time, the petitioner worked on the scarcity relief work. However, subsequently, the scarcity relief work was closed down by the State Government and accordingly, the petitioner was discontinued from the service.
4. In the context of the present case, it would also be relevant to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 S.C.C. 1, wherein, it has been held that Courts should not issue directions with regard to adsorption, regularization, or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or ad-hod employees appointed / recruited and continued for long in public employment dehors the constitutional scheme of public employment, unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme.
5. Looking to the facts of the present case and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, this petition does not deserve to be entertained.
6. In view of the above, the petition is rejected summarily.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/ Top