Point of law :Labour Law -Admittedly, the workmen in all these four petitions are civilian. They are not claiming regularization of their services. The grievances raised by all the workmen, who were rice-cleaners, is that without following legal procedure envisaged in the Industrial Disputes Act, their services came to be terminated without any notice or without making any payment of retrenchment allowance

JUDGMENT :

1. By filing Special Civil Application Nos.4218, 4219 and 5056 of 2008, the petitioner has challenged judgment and awards dated 7.12.2007 rendered at Exh.24 in Reference (LCJ) No.1 of 1997 and Reference (LCJ) No.263 of 1996 and at Exh.30 in Reference (LCJ) No.34 of 1995 by the Presiding Officer, Jamnagar District Labour Court, Jamnagar, and in Special Civil Application No.4731 of 2016, the petitioner has challenged judgment and award dated 20.5.2015 rendered in Reference (T) No.5 of 2002 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamnagar.

2. Since common issue is involved in all these petitions, these petitions are heard and decided together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Since the facts are also similar, facts of Special Civil Application No.4218 of 2008 are stated hereunder for the purpose of deciding all these petitions.

3. By filing Special Civil Application No.4218 of 2008 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside judgment and award dated 7.12.2007 rendered at Exh.24 in Reference (LCJ) No.1 of 1997 by the Presiding Officer, Jamnagar District Labour Court, Jamnagar.

3.1 The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent herein made an application to the office of the petitioner on 15.7 1996. Vide the said application, it was stated that she was not having any work for about eight months and she was a widow and she be granted some work on humanitarian ground.

3.2 It appears that the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jamnagar forwarded the complaint of the respondent to the petitioner -Commanding Officer, INS Valsura which is a premier institution of Electrical Engineering of Navy. While forwarding the said complaint, the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner pointed out that the respondent had alleged in the complaint that her services were terminated illegally and requested to reinstate in the service to her original job. Therefore, prior to submitting the case to the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, clarification of the petitioner was called for.

3.3 It appears that thereupon, Reference (LCJ) No. 1 of 1997 was instituted vide order dated 30.1.1997 of the Assistant Labour Commissioner for decision in accordance with law.

3.4 On 23.5.1997, a notice was issued to the petitioner (respondent in the Labour Court in the said Reference) which was received on 3.6.1997 forwarding a copy of the statement of demand. The statement of defence was filed on 11.3.1998. In the said statement of defence, it was pointed out that the claim of the respondent was not sustainable, true or bona fide. It was pointed out that there was no cause to file the said Reference and, therefore, the same was liable to be rejected. It was pointed out that the sailors mess was engaging workers for cleaning rice on as and when required basis who were paid charges for cleaning rice from the private fund of the Mess account. It was denied categorically that the respondent was employed. There was no system to employ the people on permanent basis. It was pointed out that there was no provision to file a reference case against the Central Government. There was no notice issued under Section 80 of the CPC. It was, therefore, urged that the case deserved to be rejected with special cost.

3.5 An affidavit at Exh. 19 was also filed by the Administrative Officer II, on behalf of the petitioner-the Commanding Officer, INS Valsura, Jamnagar stating that the respondent was not a worker of the Central Government as there was no such record available with the office of the petitioner. It was stated and affirmed on oath that the respondent, as the petitioner before the Labour Court, did not produce any proof of her service in Valsura nor any proof of the period of her engagement or termination of service. It was pointed out that the sailors’ mess was issued with cleaned grain/rice from the Government. However, the sailor who takes food in the mess, engages worker