Engagement as a 'Badli Employee' for temporary work does not entitle an employee to reinstatement and back wages under Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by the consent of the parties and heard finally.

2. The petitioner takes exception to the judgment and award of the Labour Court dated 01/04/2010 delivered in Reference I.D.A.No.39/2004. The reference has been rejected and the prayer of the petitioner seeking reinstatement with continuity and back wages, has been turned down.

3. The contentions of Mr. Shahane, learned Advocate can be summarized in brief as follows:

(a) The petitioner was working with the respondent/Corporation from 01/07/1989 till his oral termination dated 19/05/1990.

(b) The petitioner has worked in continuous and uninterrupted service of the respondent / Municipal Corporation thereby entitling himself to the benefits and protection of Section 25B, 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (Hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(c) Juniors have been retained in employment in the face of the oral termination of the petitioner.

(d) The law and procedure laid down u/s 25F and 25G of the Act r/w Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules 1957 have been violated thereby rendering the oral termination of the petitioner as an illegal retrenchment.

(e) Documents directed to be produced by the Labour Court to indicate that Juniors have been retained in employment, were not filed by the respondent / Corporation.

(f) On account of non filing of relevant documents as per the directions of the Labour Court, an adverse inference, which, therefore, establishes the case of the petitioner u/s 25G of the Act, was required to be drawn.

(g) The impugned judgment and award of the Labour Court is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(h) Reference I.D.A.No.39/2004 needs to be allowed.

4. Mr. Shahane, has further submitted that an Industrial Dispute was raised by the petitioner in 2004, which was practically 14 years after the alleged oral termination dated 19/05/1990. He submits that there is no limitation prescribed in raising an industrial dispute either u/s 2A or u/s 2(k) of the Act. He, therefore, prays that the petition be allowed.

5. Mr. Bedre, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent / Corporation has submitted as under:

(a) The petitioner was never appointed as a “temporary employee” on an available post.

(b) Similarly, he was not appointed as a “Probationer” on an existing permanent vacant post.

(c) The petitioner was appointed as a “Badli Employee” in the place of such permanent workmen who were temporarily absent for specific periods.

(d) He points out from paragraph Nos.8 and 13 of the impugned judgment that the petitioner was apparently appointed only to perform work during the temporary absence of such workmen, who had proceeded on leave.

(e) The petitioner has not disputed the facts recorded by the Labour Court in paragraph No.8 of the impugned judgment, which clearly indicate that he was appointed in place of Hari Jadhav, Sayanna, Horilal and Syed Rashid, who were temporarily on leave.

(f) The petitioner had never worked in continuous and uninterrupted service of the respondent from 01/07/1989 till 19/05/1990.

(g) The petitioner is not entitled to any protection u/s 25B and 25F of the Act.

(h) It is not the case of the petitioner that junior employees identically appointed as like the petitioner, have been continued in service and have been regularized in employment.

(i) Though the petitioner has stated in his evidence by way of an affidavit that Shivnath Patwekar, Dattatraya Kokate, Narayan Harba, Dhananjay Kalamkar, Nitin Vitthal Hucche, Subhash Jagtap, Baban Berad, Chetan Thakur and Rajashri Raut have been appointed after the petitioner was terminated, it is not the contention of the petitioner that they were also appointed as “Badli kamgar”.

(j) The entire case of the petitioner is based on the misconception that he was appointed as a “temporary or daily wager employee” when, in fact he was appointed as a “badly worker” only to perform duties during the temporary leave enjoyed by some permanent