Before the Industrial Court, the respondent workman pleaded that between the period 1 3 1982 and 30 7 1984 he had worked in the Department of geophysical party at Baroda and Mehsana, and also in the Chemistry Department as a daily wager.
It also gave a finding that his last appointment was as a water supply companytractor which is evidenced by Exhibit 21 and from the vouchers of Rig No.
2 to 9 which companytained his signature to show that he was companytracted to supply water at Rs.
250/ per month and it produced exhibit No.
While arriving at this companyclusion, the Industrial Court relied on a judgement of this Court in the case of Indian Cable Co. Ltd. vs. Its Workmen 1962 1 LLJ 409 .
The Industrial Court on companysideration of the material on record came to the companyclusion that according to the respondent workman himself, he worked in different units under different administrations of the appellant Corporation at Baroda and Mehsana projects.
While doing so the Appellate Bench made two factual errors.
28 at sl.
The appellant corporation, however, pleaded that this respondent was never appointed in the service of the appellant but was working as a water supplier companytractor on a payment of Rs.
28 at Sl.
21 and other records of Rig No.
Therefore, number providing a companytinuous job to the respondent workman by the appellant did number offend Article 25 F of the Act and did number really amount to an unfair labour practice.
250/ per month.
On facts also it came to the companyclusion that the respondent was companysidered for regular appointment and found number qualified since he had number passed 7th Class which was a requisite qualification.
Hence, despite companysidering his case the Corporation was unable to provide regular appointment to the respondent workman.
