N.B. Suryawanshi JUDGMENT
N.B. Suryawanshi, J.
1. This petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the award passed by the Labour Court, Ahmednagar in Reference IDA No. 09 of 2003.
2. The respondent was appointed as water-man with the petitioner/bank on 01.06.1987. He served at Savedi branch, Burudgaon branch, MIDC branch and Karjat branch. He was discharging his duties as water-man, sweeper and peon between 9.00 am and 6.00 pm. He completed 240 days' service in each calender year. Though, he was eligible to be made permanent, he was continued as temporary. He was discharging the same duties like permanent employee. Since the respondent requested for making him permanent, his service was orally terminated on 25.11.1998. Before termination, one month's advance notice was not given, neither salary nor compensation was paid. Juniors to him were retained in service. After termination of service of the respondent, new appointments were made. He therefore, challenged his termination by approaching the competent authority. The competent authority referred the dispute to the Labour Court, which was numbered as Reference IDA No. 09/2003.
3. The petitioner, by filing written statement denied the claim of the respondent by contending that he has never completed 240 days' service, in one year. Since he was working on daily wages, therefore, provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after for short, "the said Act") are not applicable to his case. The respondent was casual temporary worker. Though as per the agreement entered with the federation/union it was agreed that the services of the temporary employees will be confirmed, accordingly the petitioner prepared a seniority list which was valid up to 31.03.1997. Since till that date no post was vacant with the petitioner's branch and the respondent was at serial no. 25 in the said list, he could not be absorbed. The select list expired on 01.04.1998, and therefore, the respondent could not be absorbed.
4. The Labour Court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, partly allowed the reference and held that oral termination of the respondent is illegal. The petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent in service as temporary employee with effect from 25th November, 1998 with continuity in service on 60% back waves with effect from 21st March, 2003 with consequential benefits. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said award.
5. The learned advocate for the petitioner assailed the impugned award by contending that the Labour Court has committed serious error in partly allowing the reference and directing reinstatement of the respondent. It is ignored that he was temporary employee and had no right to continue in service. By relying on Assistant Engineer Rajasthan Development Corporation and another vs. Gitam Singh (MANU/SC/0079/2013 : 2013 (5) Mh. L.J. Page 1), he submits that since the respondent was engaged on daily wages on temporary basis, at the most compensation could have been awarded to him. The Labour Court has failed to take into consideration all the relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of appointment, length of service and the ground on which termination has been set aside and the delay in raising the industrial dispute. According to him, since the respondent was not appointed by following due process of law, he does not have any right to the post, therefore, the impugned award is liable to be quashed and set aside. He further submits that the impugned award was stayed by this Court at the time of admission in the year 2009. Since 1998 the respondent is not in service and it would not be appropriate that after lapse of almost 13 years, to grant reinstate........