Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a Letters Patent Appeal filed by Shirur Nagar Parishad (the Appellant) challenging the judgment and order dated 2nd July 2007 in Writ Petition No. 7841 of 2005. The Respondent No.1, R.B. Gaikwad, was appointed as an Assistant Wireman on daily wages w.e.f. 18th June 1990 and was in continuous service till termination on 14th September 1991. The Government of Maharashtra had issued a Government Resolution dated 24th June 1986 prohibiting engagement of workmen on daily basis, but due to urgent need, the Appellant engaged about 73 daily wage earners, including the Respondent No.1, without sanctioned posts. Their services were terminated. The Respondent No.1 raised a dispute before the Government Labour Officer and Conciliation Officer, and on 9th June 1993, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Pune. The Labour Court partly allowed the reference, directing reinstatement of the Respondent No.1 but rejecting the prayer for back wages and continuity of service. The Respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No. 7841 of 2005 against the Labour Court's order, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved, the Appellant filed the present Letters Patent Appeal. The legal issue was whether the Labour Court's order of reinstatement without back wages and continuity of service was just and proper. The Appellant contended that under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965, it cannot appoint any person on permanent basis as it has no power to create posts. The High Court heard the learned counsel for the Appellant, as the Respondents remained absent. The Court upheld the Labour Court's order, finding no infirmity in the decision to grant reinstatement without back wages, given that the appointment was not against a sanctioned post and the worker had worked for a short period. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Reinstatement - Back Wages - Daily Wage Worker - Termination - The appellant, a Municipal Council, terminated the services of a daily wage worker appointed without sanctioned post. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement without back wages and continuity. The High Court upheld the order, holding that reinstatement without back wages is justified when the appointment was not against a sanctioned post and the worker had worked for a short period. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court's order of reinstatement without back wages and continuity of service is just and proper in the facts of the case.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge and the Labour Court are upheld.
Law Points
- Reinstatement without back wages is justified when appointment was not against sanctioned post
- daily wage worker
- continuous service
- termination without compliance of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
