The
respondent-workman was serving as Rojamdar clerk in octroi department and was
getting daily wage of Rs.75.90. He rendered services for four years. The State Government abolished octroi and that octroi
department in Nagarpalika, Municipality and Municipal Corporation came to be
closed. The
service workman came to be discontinued. Nagarpalika terminated his service
without notice, without payment of compensation and without granting
opportunity of hearing. The workman assailed the Nagarpalika action of
discontinuing his service on the ground of breach of statutory provisions Section
25F, Section 25G and Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The
Nagarpalika opposed. The Nagarpalika contended that on abolition of octroi, the
Nagarpalika had to close the octroi department and that therefore, the
department was constrained to discontinue engagement of claimant. The
Nagarpalika contended that the claimant was not recruited after following
prescribed procedure for selection and recruitment. The claimant was engaged
irregularly and on exigency basis. The Nagarpalika contended that the claimant
was engaged, on ad-hoc, temporary and daily wage basis, and that he was not
regularly selected permanent workman. The Nagarpalika also contended that on
account of unavoidable and compelling circumstances, the Nagarpalika was left
with no option but to discontinue and relieved the claimant. It was also
claimed that since the octroi department is closed, the relief prayed for by
the claimant does not deserve to be granted. The claimant raised industrial
dispute with the allegation that the Nagarpalika illegally terminated his service.
Appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication to learned Labour
Court at Rajkot.
Labour Court held and the having reached to
the conclusion that while discontinuing the service of the claimant, who worked
as daily wage clerk in octroi department, the Nagarpalika did not comply the
conditions and requirement under Section 25F, the Court passed award granting
lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.80,000/-. Since Labour Court did not
grant reinstatement, the claimant felt aggrieved and claimant has challenged
award pass by Labour Court at Rajkot.
The High Court Held that it
was a breach of Section 25F , since it was established that the workman had
completed 240 days and had worked for four years. Nagarpalika is directed to
take necessary steps to pay amount as expeditiously as possible and preferably
within 4 weeks. Petition stands disposed.