RAJKOT DISTRICT PANCHAYAT Vs. LAXMISHANKAR GANDALAL RAVAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and award dated 19th April 2001 passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No.565 of 1989, whereby the Reference of the petitioner came to be rejected.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the respondent was discharging his duty as a daily wager with the petitioner in the year 1983 and 1984 and worked upto 28th February 1986. However, thereafter he stopped attending the work on his own and after a period of three year, the respondent raised a dispute by way of Reference (LCR) No.565 of 1989, which was partly allowed, by way of impugned judgment and award. Hence, present petition.

(3.) Having regard to the rival contentions raised by the learned advocates for the respective parties, averments made in the petition as well as the documentary evidence produced on record and the affidavit-in-reply, it transpires that the Labour Court has appreciated the evidence on record and after going through the pros and cons of the matter, it has rightly granted reinstatement as the respondent has worked for more than 240 days in the preceding year of retrenchment. It is pertinent to note that there was a breach of provision of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The view taken by the Labour Court qua reinstatement and continuity of service is absolutely just and proper. Insofar as granting of backwages is concerned, it is required to be noted that the Labour Court has not assigned proper reasons for granting backwages. When the respondent-workman has not worked at all, there is no question of granting him any backwages. Even the Apex Court in the recent decision has laid down a ratio "no work, no pay". Thus, the Labour Court has erred in granting backwages to the respondent looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.