R K TECHNICAL INSTITUTE Vs. PATEL ARVINDBHAI CHUNILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-R.K. Technical Institute (ITI) has prayed for an appropriate writ,direction and order quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and award dated 20.12.2001 passed by the Labour Court, Anand in Reference (LCA) No.132 of 1992 by which the Labour Court has allowed the said Reference directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 50% back wages and continuity of service.

(2.) It appears that respondent was initially appointed as daily wager peon and his services were terminated on 30.11.1983 as daily wager. It appears that thereafter again respondent was appointed as Peon on 1.12.1983 on a probation of one year and he was appointed on probation w.e.f. 2.12.1983. That thereafter, he worked upto 16.8.1984 i.e. hardly for 8 months and according to the petitioner management he himself abandoned the job and / or did not resume the duty as he was facing criminal proceedings / proceedings for the allegation of taking bribe of money from one student i.e. Kaushik Punjabhai. That thereafter, after a period of one year, he raised an industrial dispute challenging the alleged the termination and same was referred to Labour Court, Anand, which was numbered as Reference (LCA) No.200 of 1986 and the Labour Court by impugned judgment and award partly allowed the said reference directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 50% back wages by holding that though respondent has completed work of 240 days in the last preceding year and his services have been terminated without holding any departmental inquiry and/ or without any notice and/ or notice pay and/ or retrenchment compensation. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner-management has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Shri Chauhan, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the Labour Court has materially erred in partly allowing the reference and directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 50% back wages. It is submitted that as such the respondent has not worked for more than 240 days in the last preceding year and finding given by the Labour Court that respondent has worked for more than 240 days in the last preceding year, is considering his past service from 23.10.1982, which could not have been considered as in fact the respondent tendered his resignation on 30.11.1983 and he was again appointed on 1.12.1983 w.e.f. 2.12.1983 on a probation of one year which the respondent accepted the same without any objection. Therefore, it is submitted that as such the appointment of the respondent w.e.f. 2.12.1983 was a fresh appointment. Therefore, his earlier service was not required to be considered while calculating 240 days.