Bombay High Court
Kukadi Irrigation Project vs Waman S/O. Babanrao Bhujbal And Anr. on 14 December, 1992
Equivalent citations: [1994(68)FLR639]
JUDGMENT V.V. Kamat, J.
1. Even at the stage of the proposed summary dismissal of this Petition, some reasons are necessary to be recorded.
2. By an appointment letter dated December 29, 1984, the Respondent was appointed as a typist, on a vacant post (7) but for a period of 30 days from December 26, 1984. In the impugned order passed by the Presiding Officer, 2nd Labour Court, Ahmednagar, the contention of the Respondent-employee that he worked from December 26, 1984 till April 29, 1987 continuously has been accepted. In support of the reasons for the said conclusion, the fact the Respondent-employee was appointed on a vacant post has been focussed. It is observed that the period covers two years 4 months and some days. The Presiding Officer did not find any departmental record relating to dealing with the employee as regards sanction of leave and actions in the absence of sanction, with regard to enjoyment of the leave period. The Presiding Officer, took into consideration that it is not the case of the petitioner first party relating to any warning or Memos issued to deal with the employee about the absence during the period. The Presiding Officer, has also observed that the Musters for the total period were not produced before the Court. The Presiding Officer, has also observed that no material is placed before him to show that no work was available during the period of the noticed absence of the employee. It is held if the employee is not given work, the concerned period not showing his name on the Musters cannot be held to be due to the fault of the employee. The Presiding Officer, relied on the established principle, which is not doubted before me, that the period of cessation of work not due to any fault on the part of the employee, always gets calculated as a period of continuous service.
3. It is on record that the Respondent-employee is a graduate in Commerce and has worked continuously as held, for a period of 2 years and over. Obviously, by this time, it cannot be disputed, the Respondent-employee will have to face closed and locked doors of all employment avenues in all Government Departments, for which none else than the present petitioners would be responsible.
4. Mr. Kadam, the learned Assistant Government pleader appearing in support of the petition was unable to challenge the dictum of the Supreme Court that the State should be a model employer and if the laws of employment are not to be abided by the Government Departments, it was difficult for the Government counsel to contend that the laws of employment have been followed in this case. The learned counsel submitted that the appointment was for a period of 30 days. The appointment is clearly on a vacant post which is an established position. The petitioners, as has been observed in the impugned judgment of the Presiding Officer, have not placed the material on record, such as all the Muster-rolls, such as the actions or warning if any given to the Respondent-employee and such as the sanction or rejection with regard to the period of absence. The Presiding Officer, has carefully and cautiously referred to the contention that the employee was absent for 65 days and in the process has observed that it is not established by the petitioners. The order of termination is clearly against the basic principles of the law of employment elicited by Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
5. This Court has, times without number, observed with an anxiety for its implementation the observations of the apex Court, that the State has to be a model employer before it proceeds to regulate the employment in the private sector.
6. Taking into consideration all these aspects, this is not a case, where this Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction. For the above reasons, petition stands summarily rejected.