The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of a daily-wage worker due to a procedural defect does not automatically warrant reinstatement with full back wages, and the court may award monetary compensation based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition is filed under Article 226, 227, 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue appropriate writ of mandamus or writ of certiorary or any other writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the award dated 29.01.2009 passed by the Labour Court at Jamnagar in Reference (LCJ) No.284 of 2000.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are as under;

2.1 The petitioner herein is undertaking rural development projects and schemes assigned by Central Government and State Government and the grant is also made available accordingly by such authority. Therefore, it has no source of its own income and entire administration of the agency is run through Class I & II Gazetted Officers posted on deputation by the State of Gujarat and Class III & IV employees sent on deputation by Jamnagar District Panchayat. It is coming on record that the expenses are borne within 2% contingency fund of the project cost. The respondent herein was employed purely on temporary, ad-hoc and daily wage basis through order dated 17.02.1986. The respondent was provided work at village Dhrol under Rashtriya Rojgar Yojna and thereafter his appointment was extended from time to time depending upon the availability of work and fund at Dhrol or at other places of the District of Jamnagar. It is also the case of the petitioner that the appointing authority at different places were different and the project and schemes on which the work was provided were also altogether different. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondent herein who was provided work without following due procedure of recruitment, purely on temporary and ad-hoc basis at different places was paid his salary/wages out of 2% of contingency fund.

2.2 It is coming on record that later on, due to non availability of the work the respondent herein was not provided work at the end of the month of March, 1996 and being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the same the respondent herein approached the Hon'ble Labour Court at Jamnagar by way of filing a Reference [LCJ] No.284/2000 praying for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages on the ground that he had continuously work between 23.01.1986 to 10.12.1998. Hence, the Labour Court has passed an award on 29.01.2009 ordering reinstatement with continuity of service with 10 % back-wages.

2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the same the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondent herein was appointed on purely temporary and adhoc basis and his employment depends upon the availability of work. It is also submitted that the respondent was provided with work in different schemes and projects entrusted by the Central as well as State Government and there is no permanent nature of work. He submits that the daily wager has no right to continue the work and his employment comes to an end at the end of the day.

3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the District Rural Development Agency is not an industry within the meaning of “industry” under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the provisions of Section 25[f] of Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable and hence the Labour Court ought to have rejected reference.

3.2 It is also submitted that when a project or a scheme is completed, an employment of the daily wager automatically comes to an end and therefore, the provisions of Section 2[00] [bb] of the Act will be attracted.

3.3 It is further submitted that after a period of more than 13 years, the respondent cannot be reinstated with 10% backwages, as awarded by the Labour Court.

4. Per Contra, learned advocate for the respondent Mr. Shukla submitted that the respondent has worked for 13 years as a Clerk and due to non availability of work the respondent was terminated. It is submitted that the respondent is only receiving 17(B) wage