Taluka Development Officer vs Amarshi Ramjibhai and Another

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—Both the above petitions are directed against the judgment and award dated 26th May 2003 passed by Labour Court, Rajkot, in Reference (LCR) No. 789 of 1990 whereby the Labour Court directed the Panchayat to reinstate the respondent employee in service with 20% back wages. Special Civil Application No. 14240 of 2003 is filed by the Panchayat against the order of reinstatement and back wages and Special Civil Application No. 4647 of 2004 is filed by respondent-employee for full back wages.

According to the petitioner Panchayat the respondent workman was employed only for scarcity work and after the work the respondent workman has raised a dispute wherein the aforesaid judgment and award came to be passed.

Mr. Hathi for the petitioner Panchayat contended that the respondent workman was employed for specific work, he has no right to be continued on any post and the Labour Court ought not to have directed to reinstate him in service.

Learned Advocate for the respondent supported the judgment and award of the Labour Court and submitted that the Labour Court has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and no interference may be caused in this petition.

As a result of hearing and perusal of the record, it is found that copies of the appointment order dated 3rd April 1987 and 19th August 1988 produced on record at pages 30 and 31 of the petition show that the appointment of the respondent was for specific work stated therein. When the appointment was only for specific work, the workman is not entitled to get reinstatement. This view is supported by a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of H.K. Makwana Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, wherein it is held that the employment offered to the persons on the scarcity releif works as undertaken by the State cannot be said to be employment in "Industry" as defined by Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

In view of the above the judgment and award of the Labour Court becomes perverse and cannot stand in the eye of law. Therefore the impugned judgment and award is quashed and set aside. Special Civil Application No. 14240 of 2003 is allowed and rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.

In view of the above order Special Civil Application No. 4647 of 2004 is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.