MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BARD Vs. NEELKANTH KAWADOOJI GIRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner MSEB challenges the award dated 23-4-1992, delivered, by the First Labour Court in Reference IDA No. 34/1985, and by the said award the learned Labour Court while answering the Reference in affirmative has found that the termination of service of present respondent w.e.f. 1-7-1982 is illegal, and has directed the petitioner Board to re- instate him with continuity and full back wages. This Court has while admitting the Writ Petition on 29-3-1993 granted Stay only to payment of back wages. Thus petitioners have re-instated the respondent No. 1 in service and today he is continuing in service.

(2.) The respondent No. 1 approached the machinery under Industrial Disputes Act, raising a dispute about his termination w.e.f. 1-7-1982, contending that he has been working as employee on daily wages from September, 1981 and he was terminated on 1-7-1982, without complying with the provisions of Section 25(f) and (g) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He therefore, requested for re- instatement. It appears that after a failure report was submitted, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour made a reference about this to the Labour Court and the Labour Court accordingly took cognizance of it. In reply before the Labour Court, the present petitioner stated that the respondent No. 1 joined only in October, 1981 and he was casual labour, who was being provided work as and when the work was available. It stated that he was discontinued w.e.f. 30-6-1982 and he did not put any continuous service of 240 days in preceding 12 months. It therefore contended that it was not necessary for the petitioner to comply with the provisions of Section 25(f) and (g) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) The parties lead their respective evidence before the Labour Court. After appreciating the evidence the Labour Court has recorded a finding that the respondent No. 1 has put in continuous service of 240 days and as such there was failure to comply with the provisions of Section 25(f) and (g) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It therefore answered the award in favour of the present respondent No. 1 and against the petitioner.