PIOMA INDUSTRIES Vs. SHYAM BABULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and award dated 4.12.1999 passed by the Labour Court, Kalol in Reference (LCK) No.75 of 1984 by which the Labour Court has allowed the said Reference directing the petitioner to reinstate the concerned 12 workmen to their original post with full back wages w.e.f. 12.10.1987.

(2.) Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that as such Labour Court has materially erred in not treating /considering the petitioner industries as seasonal. It is submitted that as such there was a settlement between the management and recognized union before the Conciliation Officer in case No.692 of 1987 by which both the parties entered into settlement and agreed that the petitioner is industries of seasonal character. It is submitted that though the settlements signed by the respective parties, which were produced before the Conciliation Officer and were placed before the Labour Court, the Labour Court has not considered the same. It is submitted that if aforesaid two settlements which were before the Conciliation Officer in a proceedings under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would have been considered in that case, the Labour Court would have certainly held in favour of the petitioner that petitioner is an industries of seasonal character.

(3.) In backdrop of the above fact, Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Range Forest Officer Vs. S.T. Hadimani reported in (2002) 3 SCC 25 and in the case of Surendranagar District Panchayat & Another Vs. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai reported in (2005) 8 SCC 450 and in the case of Residents Welfare Association, Noida Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Others reported in (2009)14 SCC 716. He has also relied upon proviso to sub-section (A) of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act.