The main legal point established is that continuous work for 240 days entitles a worker to protection under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, but reinstatement may not be the appropriate relief in cases of wrongful termination, especially for daily-wage workers, and monetary compensation may be awarded instead.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present Special Civil Application impugns judgment and award dated 01.10.2007 passed by learned Labour Court, Amreli in Reference (LCA) No.41 of 2003 whereby the learned Labour Court has directed the reinstatement of the respondent workman with continuity in service and awarded 25% backwages and perks of Rs.1500/-.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present Special Civil Application are as follows:-

2.1 It is the case of the respondent workman that he was engaged by the petitioners as a daily-wager by oral appointment on 01.11.2000 as watchman – cum – valveman on a monthly pay of Rs.2439.70ps. It is his further case that he worked continuously till 30.08.2001 when he was orally terminated without giving any notice, notice pay, retrenchment compensation etc. Neither any seniority-list was published. It is contended that he was doing the work of permanent nature and after his termination, new persons had been engaged in his place. Aggrieved by his oral termination, the respondent raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner who, by order dated 31.05.2003, made Reference (LCA) No.41 of 2003 to the learned Labour Court.

2.2 Both the parties appeared before the learned Labour Court and submitted their documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their case. The learned Labour Court was pleased to frame the issues and thereafter, adjudicated the reference. By award dated 01.10.2007, learned Labour Court, Amreli was pleased to partly allow the reference reinstating the respondent workman with continuity in service and awarding 25% backwages.

2.3 Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioners have preferred the present Special Civil Application.

2.4 That the respondent has filed an affidavit-in-reply opposing the Special Civil Application.

3. Learned advocate Mr. B. T. Rao appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the learned Labour Court has committed an error apparent on the face of the record. He has submitted that the learned Labour Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent workman was not appointed on a permanent, clear vacant and sanctioned post and the petitioner Board follows the recruitment rules for appointment of Class-IV employees also. It is further submitted that the appointment of the respondent workman was purely temporary and ad-hoc on project basis and therefore, there was no question of continuing the respondent permanently once the said project is over. It is also submitted that the documentary evidence produced by the petitioners was not considered by the learned Labour Court, which clearly shows that the respondent workman had not completed 240 days in a calendar year and that he was engaged to work as and when the need arose. It is submitted that the learned Labour Court has also not taken into consideration the vouchers produced by the petitioners with respect to the payment that had been made to the workman. The statement for the period from 01.11.2000 to 31.08.2001 had been produced before the learned Labour Court which has not been properly considered while adjudicating the matter. It is further submitted that there is no permanent work with the petitioners now as the work of maintaining the pipeline had been given on contract basis by the petitioners. If the petitioners employ any particular person, then he cannot be said to be the employee of the petitioners. Further, merely because the respondent workman has completed 240 days, he does not get vested right to get appointment with the petitioner Board. It is further submitted that there is no question of violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act as alleged since the respondent workman has admitted that he was not in service of the Board since 30.08.2001. It is further submitted that the respondent workman had approached the learned Assistant Labour Commissioner in the year 2003 i. e. after two years. It is submitted that the learned Labour Curt has also failed to appreciate the f