SUVIK ELECTRONICS PVT LTD Vs. MARIAMMA N

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned award dated 14.02.2000 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference [LCA] No. 480/1993, whereby the Labour Court has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with full back wages.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the respondent at the relevant time was working as Junior Technician with the petitioner and she has worked as such for many years. The services of the respondent came to an end w.e.f. 07.04.1992. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent raised a dispute which was ultimately referred to the Labour Court for adjudication being Reference [LCA] No. 480/1993. Before the Labour Court both the parties adduced evidence and after appreciating the material produced before it, the Labour Court allowed the reference with the aforesaid directions. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The respondent was relieved from the service w.e.f. 06.04.1992 and the date of appointment as per the Identity card issued to the workman, is 15.10.1985. Therefore, the length of service put in by the respondent workman is 6 years, 5 months & 21 days. Even otherwise the date of joining as per the appointment letter is taken then also the length of service put in by the respondent comes to 6 years. Thus, the respondent was entitled for three months notice pay in view of the provisions of Section 25F(b) of the I.D. Act. The petitioner had therefore paid Rs.4503.30 paise to respondent towards retrenchment compensation. Therefore, there is no violation of the relevant provisions of the I.D. Act and the Labour Court has committed error in granting reinstatement to the respondent workman. It is also evident from the record that after relieving the respondent from the services no juniors were retained by the petitioner and therefore, the finding of the Labour Court qua violation of Sections 25G & 25H is perverse. The learned counsel for the respondent is unable to point out anything contrary to the said finding.