EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. PRAVINBHAI NATHUBHAI SHRIMALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Award dtd.1/3/2000 passed by the Labour Court, Kalol in Reference (LCK) No.124 of 1986 whereby the Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondents and to pay back wages to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 from 17/2/1997, to pay back wages to respondent No.4 from 19/2/1994, within 30 days from the date of publication of the Award.

(2.) As per the case of the petitioner, the respondents were engaged in 1982-83 purely on temporary basis when the work was to be done faster and within a specified time, and therefore, the services of the persons other than the regular employees were needed for a temporary period. From 2/2/1985, as the work decreased, the services of the respondents were no more required, they were not engaged thereafter. The Government has also passed various orders and Resolutions directing the petitioner not to engage daily wagers. Against the termination, the respondents filed reference before the Labour Court for reinstatement and back wages, wherein, the Labour Court passed Award directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondents with back wages as aforesaid, against which the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

(3.) Ms.Rita Chandarana, learned AGP has mainly argued that the respondents were engaged purely on temporary basis when the work was required to be done faster and within stipulated time and as the work was decreased, the services of the respondents were terminated. The services of the respondents were needed for temporary period. She has also argued that pursuant to the orders and Circulars of the Government for not engaging daily wagers due to economic measures, the services of the respondents were terminated; that the Government had banned the engagement of daily wager vide Circular dtd.17/10/1988 and therefore, there can not be any new recruitment nor there can be reinstatement; that in view of the Resolution dtd.30/5/1989 issued by the State Government, the services of the daily wagers were required to be stopped due to financial crises. She has further argued that the Labour Court failed to consider the evidence produced by the petitioner before it and has passed erroneous order directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondents with back wages as mentioned in the Award. Consequently, it is prayed to quash and set aside the impugned Award. She has also placed reliance on the following decisions; [1] AIR 1996 SC 1565 [2] AIR 1997 SC 3657 [3] (1992) 4 SCC 99 and [4] 2004 (3) GLR 1841 (FB).