Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Except that, no other submission is made and no other decision is relied by him.

7. Learned Advocate, Mr. Mukul Sinha, submitted that matter can be looked into by two ways. He submitted that workman has satisfactorily proved Section 25B(1) and remained in service for a period without interruption and petitioner Corporation has not proved any kind of interruption in service of the workman by leading proper evidence before the Labour Court. Therefore, he submitted that respondent workman has satisfactorily proved continuous service as defined under Section 25(B)(1) of the I.D. Act, 1947. He also submitted that statutory provisions entitles the workman to have weekly off as well as public holiday under the provisions of Rule 23 of Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, whatever the wages has been paid to the workman by the employer, it includes the wages of weekly off and public holiday. Therefore, according to him, even Section 25(B)(1) is satisfied by the workman if weekly off and other holidays are included in the calculation of 240 days continuous service. He also submitted that workman remained in service from January, 1983 to November, 1986 working as a daily wager. During this service period, the service of respondent workman was not interrupted by any other reason by the Corporation. Therefore, he submitted that if the workman has satisfied the definition of continuous service as specifically mentioned in Section 25(B)(1) of I.D. Act, 1947, then also, he is entitled the benefit of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947. He also submitted that workman has already been reinstated by the petitioner Corporation and he is working with the Corporation and juniors to respondent workman, have been regularized by petitioner Corporation. These facts have been mentioned in the affidavit filed by respondent workman. Learned Advocate, Mr. Prabhav Mehta, submitted that facts which are mentioned in the affidavit-in-reply by respondent workman, are categorically denied by the petitioner Corporation in Para.4 of the rejoinder. Learned Advocate, Mr. Mehta, submitted that name which has been suggested in affidavit-in-reply, a specific detail has been given by Corporation that the workmen, whose names are mentioned, are not similarly situated to the respondent workman. Therefore, according to him, no junior to the respondent workman has been regularized by Corporation. Except this, learned Advocate, Mr. Mukul Sinha, has not made any other submission and relied upon any other decision.

9. The arguments which have been advanced by petitioner before this Court relying upon the decision in respect to daily wager, continuous service, 240 days and legal right of daily wager. Looking to the award as it is, none of the contentions were raised by petitioner before the Labour Court. No such submissions were made before the Labour Court by petitioner Corporation. On the contrary, the working days of 213 days in the year 1986 and 126 days in the year 1987 has been admitted by petitioner Corporation. The petitioner Corporation has not relied upon any of the decision which has been relied by him before this Court. This Court is examining the legality and validity of the award in question on the ground that whether any error has been committed by Labour Court while passing such award or not. The submission which was not made before the Labour Court by the petitioner, naturally, the Labour Court should not have to deal with such submissions and now to argue this question that Labour Court award is bad because daily wager has no right to the post, 240 days continuous service was not established, service of the workman was not terminated by positive action, no such submissions were mentioned or argued by the petitioner Corporation before the Labour Court. Therefore, considering these undisputed facts, whether the award passed by Labour Court is bad or not, is required to be examined by this Court. It is not the case of the petitioner Corporation before this Court that these all submissions were made before the Labour Court and none of the submissions were considered by Labour Court, Baroda. However, apart from these facts, since the submissions raised before this Court, therefore, this Court is examining the same which have been raised by petitioner Corporation. The respondent workman is covered by definition of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The workman had completed continuous service of 213 days, as per the record produced by Corporation. It is necessary to note one important aspect that in cross-examination of the workman by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Corporation, a specific question was asked to the workman that he had not completed 232 days continuous service in the year 1986 and 198 days in the year of 1987. In cross-examination, the workman has made it clear that his service was terminated on 3.12.1987 by petitioner Corporation. The evidence of Page 1821 Corporation is at Exh.20 wherein the Secretary of Corporation was examined. According to evidence of Corporation, the workman was not working as a daily wager but, he was working as Hangami Kamdar but, payment has been made on the basis of daily wage. The workman was appointed in January, 1986. He was not made permanent by Corporation and from November, 1987, he abandoned the job. The witness of petitioner Corporation admitted that Minimum Wages Act is applicable to the petitioner Corporation and minimum wages were paid to the respondent workman and bonus is also paid to the respondent workman. No notice was given to the respondent workman by the petitioner Corporation. So, from the evidence of the petitioner Corporation, the fact was proved before the Labour Court that no written order of appointment was given to the workman and no termination order was given to the workman. Both the things have been done by oral order of the petitioner Corporation.

13. Now, I am considering the second aspect, as to whether the workman had completed 240 days or not. Looking to the record, 213 days in the year 1986 and 126 days in 1987 and relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation (supra), the workman is entitled to include the public holidays and weekly off which being necessary under the provision of Rule 23 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The workman under the provisions of Rule and Minimum Wages Act entitled weekly off and public holiday with salary if he had worked full week as statutory wages. Therefore, days of weekly off and public holiday workman has received statutory wages so such days must have to be included in actual working days. According to petitioner Corporation, the salary was paid on the basis of minimum wages notification to the respondent workman. This was the statement made by Secretary of the petitioner Corporation vide Exh.20 before the Labour Court that the wages was paid to the workman under Minimum Wages Act. The component of minimum wages under the notification taken into account the weekly off and other public holidays in which period the workman should have not have to work with the employer. Therefore, whatever the minimum wages fixed by the State Government under the said notification includes wages of the weekly off and public holidays. Therefore, Para.5 of the Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation is applicable to the facts of this case because the workman has received the wages of weekly off under the notification of State Government as per Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Relevant para.5 is quoted as under: