Proof of 240 days of continuous employment is required to attract provisions of section 25-F of the I.D. Act.

JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---The petitioner, a daily rated labourer, under the Dy. Engineer, Public Works Division, Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25th March, 1994 passed by the Industrial Court, Nashik in revision application U.L.P. No. 173 of 1993 filed by the department against the judgment and order dated 12-4-1993 passed by the Labour Court in complaint U.L.P. No. 21 of 1987 wherein, the petitioner was aggrieved by the order of termination with effect from 1-9-1983. According to the petitioner, it was an act of unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the M.R.TU. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971.

2. The case of the petitioner before the labour Court was that the petitioner was employed as a daily rated labourer (Cartman) from 9th January, 1976. He worked upto 31st August, 1983 and that his services came to be terminated illegally with effect from 1-8-1983. (I have given the dates as reflected in the proceedings from place to place). According to the petitioner, in his complaint he was terminated from employment with effect from 1-8-1983 though in the order of the labour Court it is stated as 1-9-1983. The respondent filed his written statement to contest the complaint of unfair labour practice. According to the respondent, the petitioner was not in employment from 9-1-1976 as alleged but he was in employment only from 1-1-1982 as Gadivan (Cartman) and not as a labourer or a Mazdoor. The respondent also denied the fact that he had discontinued the petitioner from 1-9-1983. According to the respondent, the petitioner was given work as and when the work was available and that he was not on regular establishment. According to the respondent, therefore, there was no question of holding any enquiry. It was the case of the petitioner that he was hastily discontinued. In case of the respondent was that as no work was available on 30th June, 1983, the petitioner was discontinued and, therefore, he was not entitled to any reliefs. It was denied by the respondent that any unfair labour practice as alleged was engaged in by the department.

3. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Labour Court framed as many as six issues and on the basis of the evidence adduced before it the issues were answered in favour of the petitioner and directed his reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service from 15-1-1987.

4. The respondent aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Labour Court, preferred a revision before the Industrial Court under section 44 of the Act. After hearing the parties, the learned Industrial Court allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Labour Court. According to the Industrial Court, the case of the petitioner was covered by section 2(oo), (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned member however, held that since the nature of the work of the petitioner was purely temporary and that he was employed as a daily rated labourer, his case did not attract section 25-F of the I.D. Act.

5. At the outset, I must observe that there has been abundant poverty of pleadings on both the sides. I must also observe that the manner in which the complaint was conducted leaves much to be desired on the part of the District Government Pleader. I can understand paucity and poverty of pleadings on the part of the labourer and his representative but it was expected from the department that they should have given sufficient material and particulars in respect of the period of employment of the petitioner. It is to the contrary, and the labour Court was constrained to observe that in spite of several adjournments the department did not produce the record though the department was specifically directed to produce the muster roll for the relevant period. It appears that the State Government is not paying sufficient attention to the Labour Court matters at the district level of the Labour and the Industrial Court. It appears that the State Government does not realise

Click Here to Read the rest of this document