Seventeen years after 13 conservancy workers appointed in May 1991 at the circuit house,then new,in Pune found themselves jobless,they have won their battle with the Public Works Department (PWD) with the Bombay High Court ruling in their favour. The HC on June 20 ordered that these 13 workers of the circuit housea residential complex for visiting government officialswhose services were terminated after three years and nine months in the job,be reinstated. The HC order of June 20 is also significant in that the appointment and termination of all the 13 were done verbally with no letter,written document or contract signed between them and the PWD. The 13 workers,S P Rokade,S H Shinde,L R Gawade,J M Kamble,R R Kharat,L L Arokiswamy,P M Dhiwar,S N Suryavanshi,V R Tondalite,S R Gofane,A A Pillai,V K Pawar and R I Shaikh were employed without any written document by the PWD as room servants-cum-conservancy workers in 1991. The PWD terminated their services on February 10,1995 without citing any reason,said their lawyer. They moved the Pune labour court,but the order went against them. They appealed in the Pune industrial court,and the Pune labour court order was reversed in their favour. The PWD appealed in the Bombay High Court in April 1999. The HC last week directed the PWD to reinstate all the 13 with related consequential benefits other than the backlog wages. Directing the PWD to reinstate the 13,the court stated in its judgment that such termination was intended,as contended,to deprive the complainants (workers) of permanency rights. The PWD through its lawyer P G Sawant had filed 13 appeals for each worker against the industrial court order,which were heard together by HC justice Anoop V Mohta. The PWD through its executive engineer claimed that the workers were employed and terminated by a contractor and not directly by the PWD. However,they failed to examine the contractor in court or provide any corroborative evidence in favour of this argument. There is nothing brought on record by the PWD that the regular salary/ wages were paid by the contractor from time to time, the court observed. On the other hand,the workers through their lawyer K S Bapat,stated that though they were appointed verbally,they were working under the supervision of PWD. The PWD terminated their services without following due procedure as contained in section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947,stated advocate Bapat.
