STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Vs. HEMLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the award dtd. 9/11/2011, pronounced on 5/1/2012 in case no. 202/IDA/Reference/2008 the present writ petition has been filed. Vide the impugned award the learned labour Court has awarded reinstatement with 50% backwages.

(2.) The facts in brief is that as per the respondent worker he was engaged as daily wage worker by the petitioners in 1991 and worker discontinued to work under the petitioners for a period of about 14 years till June, 2014 when his services were abruptly discontinued in total contravention to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, particularly the provisions of Chapter V of the Industrial Disputes Act. The discontinuance from service by the petitioners was challenged by the respondent worker by raising the industrial dispute under the provisions of Industrial disputes Act and State Government in the year 2008 made a reference to the labour Court, Rajnandgaon for answering the reference where the case was registered as 202/IDA/Reference/2008. After either side before the labour Court submitted their claim and written statement, it was ordered for giving evidence on either side. The worker got himself examined and in support of his contention he has also got examined another witness namely, Itwari Ram Baghav. Thereafter the petitioner State as the second party before the labour Court was asked to lead evidence. However, no evidence whatsoever was led by the employer State before the labour Court and finally matter was heard on merits with available records and evidences adduced by the worker and relying upon the evidences learned labour Court has passed the impugned award of reinstatement with 50% backwages. It is this award which is under challenge.

(3.) According to the petitioner the finding of fact of labour Court is bad in law for the reason that worker in the instant case is failed to prove his case by leading cogent and material documentary proof in respect of firstly his employment with the petitioner and secondly his having worked continuously for a period of more than 240 days in a calender year preceding his discontinuance. It was also the contention of the State that even otherwise since the worker was substantially a daily wage worker and on each date his employment stood discontinued till he was engaged on the next day. The awarding of 50% backwages is therefore, unreasonable and is without any basis whatsoever. It was also the contention of the petitinoer that even otherwise granting of backwages ought to have been rejected only on the ground of no work no pay. Thus, order of reinstatement as also granting of 50% backwages deserves to be interfered with.