JUNAGADH AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY Vs. DAMODAR DHAYABHAI HIRPARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and award dated 23.04.2003 passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh in Reference (LCJ) No. 1048/1990, by which the Labour Court has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with all consequential benefits and continuity of service with 25% back wages.

(2.) RESPONDENT was serving as Field Labourer in the year 1984 -85. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that he left the work on his own on and from 31.05.1985. That thereafter, after a period of two years i.e. in the year 1987, the respondent raised industrial dispute challenging his alleged termination/retrenchment with effect from 31.05.1985 and the said reference was referred to the Labour Court, Junagadh which was numbered as Reference (LCJ) No. 1048/1990. It was the specific case on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent workman has not worked for not less than 240 days in the preceding year and that he has worked only for 104 days and in less than one year. That the learned Labour Court by impugned judgment and award partly allowed the said reference by directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman with all consequential benefits and continuity of service with 25% back wages on the ground that there is a breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, as the respondent workman has worked for not less than 240 days in the last preceding year. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 23.04.2003 passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh in Reference (LCJ) No. 1048/1990, petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) SHRI D.G. Chauhan, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the Labour Court has materially erred in directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 25% back wages on the ground that the alleged termination/retrenchment is in breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted that as such respondent has failed to establish and prove that he has worked for not less than 240 days in the last preceding year. It is further submitted that even in the statement of claim, respondent never claimed that he has worked for not less than 240 days in the last preceding year. It is submitted that as such respondent worked for only 104 days in the last preceding year as a field labourer and as and when the work was available, he was offered the work, therefore, the Labour Court has materially erred in holding that there is a breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted that even the industrial dispute was raised after a period of two years. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present petition.