Bombay High Court
Gautam Mahadu Narwade vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 20 June, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 WP No. 2759/1995
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2759 OF 1995
Shri Gautam s/o Mahadu Narwade
Age: 28 Yrs., occu. unemployed,
R/o Buddhanagar, Jawahar Colony,
Aurangabad. = PETITIONER
VERSUS
1)
The State of Maharashtra.
2) The Executive Engineer,
Mechanical Division No. II,
Aurangabad.
3) The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Aurangabad. = RESPONDENTS
-----
Mr. SW Mundhe, AGP for Respondents.
-----
CORAM : P.R.BORA, J.
DATE :
20 th
June,2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1) None for petitioner. Even on earlier
occasion, i.e. on 9.6.2016 also nobody has
appeared for the petitioner and this Court had
passed the following order, -
" None appears for petitioner.
However, in the interest of justice,
by way of last chance, the matter
stands adjourned to 16th June, 2016.
2. If the matter is not proceeded
with on the adjourned date,
necessary orders will follow "
2) Today also, none appears for the
petitioner. Shri Mundhe, learned AGP appears for
the respondents. With the assistance of learned
AGP, I have perused the impugned order and the
material placed on record. The record reveals
that a dispute was raised before the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour relating to the prayer of
the petitioner employee for his reinstatement in
service with the respondent employer and
accordingly, the Reference was made under Section
10 and 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the
Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Aurangabad and was
forwarded for adjudication to the Labour Court at
Aurangabad.
3) It was the contention of the petitioner
employee before the Labour court that he was
appointed as Helper w.e.f. 2.4.1985 and that he
continuously worked thereafter till 21st
September, 1987. It was his further contention
that his father was an employee of the respondent
employer and after his retirement, he ought to
have been continued in the services on his place.
4)
As against it, it was the submission on
behalf of the respondent employer before the
Labour Court that the petitioner employee was
provided a fixed time appointment purely on
humanitarian considerations. It was further
contended that the petitioner never continuously
worked with the respondent so as to claim the
benefits available to a permanent employees under
the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. It
was further contended that the last appointment
was issued in favour of the petitioner employee
on 20th July, 1987, wherein there was a clear
stipulation that his appointment will come to an
end by 21.9.1987 and accordingly, the petitioner
was not provided any work thereafter.
5) Having considered all these facts, the
Labour Court, by observing that the appointment
issued in favour of the petitioner was a
temporary and fixed time appointment and carrying
the stipulation therein that after expiry of the
said period, without any notice, the services of
the petitioner will automatically stand
terminated, has recorded a conclusion that the
case of the present petitioner was falling under
the purview of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the
Industrial Disputes Act and in the circumstances,
the Labour Court rejected the Reference.
6) In the present petition, after having
perused the grounds of objections, no such ground
is raised so as to cause any interference in the
order passed by the Labour Court. The same
contentions are reiterated by the petitioner in
the memo of petition that he had continuously
worked and that after retirement of his father,
the department ought to have continued him in the
services in the place of his father.
7) After having gone through the material
on record, it does not appear to me that the
learned Labour court has committed any error in
rejecting the Reference. The Writ Petition is
devoid of any substance and stands rejected. In
the circumstances, no order as to costs. Rule
discharged.
Sd/
(P.R.BORA,J.)
bdv/
