The judgment emphasizes the importance of complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act in cases of termination of services and highlights the burden of proof on the employer to disprove continuous employment.

R.C. Chavan, J.

These appeals by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Amravati are directed against the orders passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Amravati in respondent's complaint of unfair labour practice, confirmed in revision by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Amravati, as well as learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petitions filed by the appellants against the said orders.

2. The respondents/complainants claimed to be engaged by the appellant Board as peons on daily wages. They had completed required number of days of continuous service. They alleged that yet the appellant board terminated their services without any reasons and without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. The complainants further allege that after termination of their services the appellant Board engaged new employees in violation of the provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act and thus, indulged in unfair labour practice.

3. The appellant had claimed that it was performing sovereign function and, therefore, was not subject to rules applicable to an Industry. It was stated that the complainants were appointed on daily wages for a specific period and their services were terminated after completion of the work. It was alleged that the complainants had not completed the requisite number of days of continuous service to entitle them to continue in service.

4. Upon consideration of the evidence tendered before him, the learned Judge, Labour Court, Amravati held that the appellant had indulged in unfair labour practice and directed the appellant board to reinstate the complainants in service with fifty percent back wages within a period of two months from the date of order i.e. December 9, 1996. The learned Member, Industrial Court, before whom revision petitions were filed by the appellant board, dismissed the revision petitions. These orders were challenged by the appellant Board by filing writ petitions. The learned single Judge, who heard the petitions, held that except filing the reply the petitioner did not lead either oral or documentary evidence before the Labour Court. The findings recorded by the Courts below did not disclose any manifest or apparent error of law and, therefore, there was no room to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction of the Court. He, therefore, rejected the writ petitions. Aggrieved thereby the appellant board preferred these appeals.

5. We have heard learned advocate Mrs. Khade for the appellant Board and learned advocate Shri Marpakwar for all the respondents.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in M.S. Co-op. C.G.M.F. Ltd., v. M.S. Co-op. C.G. M.F. Employees' Union, AIR 1994 SC 1046 : 1994 Supp (3) SCC 385 : 1995-I-LLJ-53. The learned counsel submitted that as in the reported decision, in the present case, the respondents employees were engaged seasonally for the summer and winter examinations only, and therefore, such seasonal workers could not claim permanency. As rightly countered by the learned counsel for the respondents, the question is not of granting permanency to the respondents workmen. It is only about their wrongful termination. Further, no plea has been raised in the proceedings before the Labour Court that the respondents were seasonal employees therefore, the ratio of the decision is inapplicable to the present case.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant next relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhyamik Siksha Parishad, U.P. v. Anil Kumar Mishra, AIR 1994 SC 1638 : 1994-II-LLJ-977. This decision too relates to regularisation of services of the workers temporarily working under the State Government against the posts which were not sanctioned. Here, the question is not one of regularisation, but of terminating the services of the respondents without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes