1. The petitioners herein have prayed to quash and set aside the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Nadiad dated 28.11.2001 in Reference LCN No. 284, 285, 291, 292, 294, 295 of 1992 and thereby allow the reference of the petitioners by directing reinstatement with back wages.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were appointed in August 1987 by the respondent no. 2 as Work Charge Clerks. The petitioners were dismissed from the service without following due procedure of law. Hence the petitioners preferred reference before the labour court. The labour court after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid order. Hence the present petitions are preferred.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been discharged from the job without considering seniority and even juniors are working till today and therefore the respondents have breached section 25(h) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He submitted that the petitioners have been discharged without following due procedure under the law.
4. This court has heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the papers on record. The issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by a full bench decision of this court in the case of Amreli Municipality vs. Gujarat Pradesh Municipal Employees Union reported in 2004(2) GLH 692 wherein this court has observed that even if it is held that the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal has wide jurisdiction to alter service conditions, it can exercise such powers subject to the recruitment rules, availability of sanctioned posts and subject to the grant and limits of budgetary provisions. When there is no permanent post, no direction can be given to the authorities to absorb daily wage employees by creating new posts. It is the common phenomenon in the case of Nagarpalikas/ Municipalities/ Government Corporations where such appointments are made on political considerations. The parties in power may recruit their own persons as daily rated employees and thereafter by seeking orders from the Court, they want to absorb such employees on permanent establishment. Time and again, such practice is deprecated in so many words in the judgment referred by us. The Panchayats, Municipalities, Municipal Corporations or Government Corporations as well as Government establishments are facing severe financial crisis only because of such staff which may be required for the time being, but to make them permanent would definitely adversely affect the financial substratum of respective organizations and the Courts should not be party to such illegal and irregular appointments by allowing them to be continued at the cost of public exchequer.
5. In that view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this court, the ratio of the aforesaid decisions are clearly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and therefore the petitioners cannot be said to be entitled to any relief as claimed for in the petitions. The court below has rightly observed that there is no breach of Section 25(f), (g) & (h) as the appointment of the petitioners itself was not regular. The present petitions are devoid of any merits and deserve to be dismissed.
6. In the premises aforesaid, these petitions are dismissed.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top