Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 25h in Jagdishchandra Harshadbhai Dave vs Deputy Executive Engineer on 21 April, 2025Matching Fragments
2. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya has submitted that the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be quashed and set aside since the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that there was violation of the NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/254/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined provisions of Sections 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") while terminating the services of the appellant-workman. While placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 3 SCC 192, it is submitted that in order to prove the violation of the provisions of Section 25G of the Act, which envisages 'first come last go', it is not required for the workman to prove that he worked for 240 days.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/254/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
4. Opposing the present appeal, learned advocate Mr. Jwalit Soneji has submitted that the Labour Court has categorically recorded that the workman i.e. the appellant has not worked for 240 days continuously before his termination in one year and he was only engaged for a short period intermittently in the month of April, 1994 for 30 days, May, 1994 for 31 days, June, 1994 for 30 days and June, 1995 for 30 days. It is submitted that the respondents have never maintained the seniority of the workman and hence, there would not be any issue of violation of the provisions of Section 25G of the Act. So far as the alleged violation of the provisions of Section 25H of the Act is concerned, it is submitted that the respondents, in the year 1996, had undertaken the necessary exercise to fill up the post by regular employees and hence, the respondents cannot be compelled to inform the appellant for getting re-employed. Reliance is placed by learned advocate Mr. Jwalit Soneji on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Surendranagar District Panchayat v. Dahyabhai Amarsinh, (2005) 8 SCC 750. Thus, it is submitted that the present appeal may not be entertained.
9. So far as the violation of Sections 25G and 25H of the Act is concerned, we may, refer to the affidavit filed by the respondent- Board at Exh.25. In the affidavit it is specifically mentioned that the appellant was engaged primarily for providing water to villagers in draught. In his oral evidence before the Labour Court, on a question put on behalf of the appellant about his employment during drought, the witness of the Board has specifically deposed that the appellant was only engaged during draught as per the requirement of work orally, and after 30.06.1994, he has not been engaged on work. Thus, the appellant was employed for a specific purpose intermittently for supply water during draught. The muster roll proves that he has been engaged during summer. There is almost one year gap between his employment in June , 1994 to May , 1995. Thus, his engagement was for supplying water during draught only, for a particular project of supplying water. At this stage, refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dahyabhai Amarsinh (supra). The Supreme Court, while examining the provisions of Sections 25G and 25H of the Act read with Section 2(oo) of the Act, has observed thus:-
12. So far as the alleged violation of section 25H read with Rule 82 of the Rules is concerned, we do not find merit in the submissions of the appellant. The opportunity to the retrenched workmen to offer themselves for re-employment, is embedded in Clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 82 of the Rules. It is categorically mentioned in Clause (a) that if the number of 'vacancies' to be filled in is not less than 50, the employer has to publish in a newspaper of the concerned locality in which industrial establishment is situated, a notice giving the details of the "vacancies" to be filled, and in any other case, the employer has to send register post to the last known address of each of the retrenched workmen eligible for appointment to any such vacancies. Thus, the language used in Rule 82 is for filling up the "vacancies" by giving preference to the workmen, who are retrenched. In the present case, it is alleged that after, the appellant was retrenched 6 new workmen were appointed NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/254/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined in the year 1996 vide order at Exh.36, hence the respondent-Board was mandated by the aforesaid provision to inform him before appointing new workmen. The appointment order at Exh.36 reveals that the respondent-Board had appointed the daily wagers after issuance of advertisement, and holding the interview. Hence, the burden lies on the workman to prove that such persons were appointed in his place/vacancy for doing the same work of supplying water during draught in order to attract the provision of Rule 82. The manner in which these 6 dailywagers are appointed would indicate that they are appointed after undergoing regular process, and their appointment cannot be considered similar to that of appellant, who was engaged as a daily wager for doing particular work during draught. Hence, the provision of section 25H will not get attracted. Thus, we do not find the any violation in the provision of section 25H of the ID Act read with Rule 82 of the Rules.