T. Satyanarayana v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Visakhapatnam & Anr.

This writ petition is directed against an Award dated 14.03.2000 made in I.D.No.61 of 1997 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, whereunder the claim petition filed by the petitioner herein, under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”), seeking the relief of reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service, was dismissed.

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he joined as an Operator-cum-Watchman in the 2nd respondent-Gramapanchayat on

01.04.1993 and since then he has been working as such without any complaint whatsoever. The 2nd respondent-Gramapanchayat also passed a resolution for sanction of permanent post of Operator-cum- Watchman and sent proposals to the District Collector, Panchayat Wing. While so, elections were conducted to the 2nd respondent- Gramapanchayat and a new Body was elected on 14.02.1997. Thereafter, the new Body called for tenders for the services of Operator-cum-Watchman by terminating his services on 01.04.1997, without issuing any notice, and without following the provisions of the section 25(F) of the Act, though he worked for a period of four years continuously. Being aggrieved by the same, he raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in I.D.No.61 of 1997. i) The 2nd respondent filed a counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner and contending that it had issued a paper publication calling for tenders for P.W.S.S. Scheme and other works and since the petitioner quoted lowest price, he was given tender of the work of P.W.S.S. Scheme. There was no resolution passed for sanction of permanent post from 01.04.1994 to 31.03.1998. The petitioner suppressed the fact that he submitted tenders for the periods he was successful in the tender for P.W.S.S. Scheme. The petitioner was not successful in the tender notification dated 26.03.1997 and one Malla Duvudabbai was successful and he was allotted with tender services. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that his services were terminated without giving any notice does not arise. He is not a workman as alleged by him and he was an independent contractor. As soon as contract period was over, the successful contractor was entrusted with the services. The provisions of Section 25(F) of the Act have no application. ii) Before the Labour Court, petitioner got himself examined as W.W.1 and another witness as W.W.2 and marked documents Exs.W.1 to W.9. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, M.W.1 was examined and documents Exs.M.1 to M.27 were marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire evidence, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act, and accordingly, dismissed the I.D. by an order dated 14.03.2000. The same is under challenge in this writ petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that the 2nd respondent-Gramapanchayat is a Public Body and services of an Operator-cum-Watchman are perennial in nature. Therefore, it ought not to have called for tenders for rendering such service. The petitioner had worked for four years continuously. Therefore, it must be deemed that he was in public employment as a workman of the 2nd respondent-Gramapanchayat and the petitioner cannot be thrown away stating that he is not the workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act. The Labour Court grossly erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

Whereas the learned Government Pleader for Labour

appearing for the respondents opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the Labour Court has not committed any error and its findings do not call for interference by this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

I have given my earnest considerations to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record.

The facts are not in dispute except that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that he was allotted with the services of an Operator-cum-Watchman on contract basis in the tenders called for by the 2nd respondent-Gramapanchayat, which fact is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Thus, it is admitted that the petitioner was not appointed either on temporary basis or on regular basis or on casual basis or on contingency basis. His services were engaged after calling for tenders and accepting the lowest tender offered by him for rendering services as an Operator-cum-Watchman the 2nd respondent-Gramapanchayat for four consecutive years. Therefore, as rightly held by the Labour Court, the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act nor the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Act are violated. In fact, it is a clear case falling under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. The petitioner’s services were not terminated. His contract came to an end. Tenders were called for on

26.03.1997 and the lowest tender of one Malla Devudabbai was accepted and he was allotted with the tender.

Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Award passed by the Labour Court does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality calling for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and thus liable to be dismissed.