Satish Bhaurao Ausarmal v. The Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corpn. And ORS.
osk 35-wp-7861-2018.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7861 OF 2018 Satish Bhaurao Ausarmal ...
Petitioner V/s.
The Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corn. & Ors.
...
Respondents • Ms.Shivani S. Kunder for the Petitioner.
• Mr.Rohit P. Sakhadeo for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
DATE : 26th NOVEMBER, 2018.
P.C. :
1] Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2] This Writ Petition takes an exception to the order dated 17/11/2015 passed by the Presiding Officer of 3rd Labour Court, Thane, thereby dismissing the Reference (IDA) No.22 of 2011. 3] The said Reference was made by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Thane, vide its order dated 28/02/2011 for adjudication of a dispute of the Petitioner's demand for reinstatement in service with full back wages and continuation of service with effect from 27/10/2006.
1/2
osk 35-wp-7861-2018.odt 4] Admittedly, as per the appointment letter issued to the Petitioner on 17/12/2003, he was appointed merely on a temporary/contract basis without having any nature of permanency in the job and as he was absent from the duty, his services were terminated.
5] As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the Respondent, the said termination of service falls under Section 2(oo) (bb) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore, it cannot be termed as a "retrenchment".
6] Hence, as considered by the Labour Court, when admittedly his service was on temporary/contract basis and sufficient opportunity was given to him as to the cause for termination, as the receipt of various memos given to him is also admitted by him in his evidence before the Court, then no fault can be found in the impugned order passed by the Labour Court, thereby refusing the Reference. 7] Hence, the Writ Petition being without merit stands dismissed.
[DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] 2/2