DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. SINDARVA PATU DANABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Hriday Buch, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent workman has waived service of rule on behalf of the respondent workman. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for final hearing today itself.

(2.) In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the award passed by the labour Court, Junagadh in Reference (LCJ) No. 332 of 1993 dated 20th October, 1997 whereunder the petitioner has been directed to reinstate the respondent workman in service with continuity of service and with full back wages for the intervening period on the post of Mistry cum Clerk. The respondent workman has filed the affidavit in reply and has also produced a copy of statement of claim, purshis and notice served by the respondent to the petitioner and other documents alongwith the reply. As against that, the petitioner has filed affidavit in rejoinder to the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent workman.

(3.) Ms. Nayana Panchal, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the labour court has committed gross error in awarding reinstatement of the respondent workman in service with full back wages. She has further pointed out that the gainful employment of the respondent workman was proved before the labour court and was admitted by the respondent workman and, yet, the labour court has ignored the said aspect and has granted full back wages for the intervening period. As against that, Mr. Buch, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent workman has pointed out that this employment which has been admitted by the respondent workman cannot be considered as gainful employment because just to maintain the family, some work is required to be done by the respondent and the same cannot be considered as gainful employment. Mr. Buch has submitted that there was joint pursis filed by both the parties vide Exh. 17 before the labour court wherein the facts have been admitted by the petitioner that the respondent workman has completed 240 days' continuous service and that at the time of termination of his services, the provisions of section 25F have not been complied with. Not only that, but both the learned advocates have requested the court to pass appropriate orders considering such joint pursis Exh. 17 which was produced before the labour court.