STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KATUBEN TAPUBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned AGP Mr.A.L.Sharma for petitioners.

(2.) The petitioners have challenged the common award passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference Nos.55 to 59 of 1992, 64 of 1992, 78 and 79 of 1992, Exh.31, dated 18.7.2009. 2.1 The Labour Court, Bhavnagar has granted reinstatement to each workman except workman Nathabhai Tapubhai and Jayaben Meghabhai, who expired during pendency of reference before the Labour Court, Bhavnagar. The Labour Court, Bhavnagar has awarded only consequential benefits in favour of legal heirs and representatives of deceased Nathabhai and Jayaben. The Labour Court, Bhavnagar has not awarded any amount of back wages in favour of any workman while granting only reinstatement in service but, Labour Court, Bhavnagar has granted consequential benefits in favour of the workmen.

(3.) Learned AGP Mr.Sharma has raised contention before this Court that labour Court has committed gross error in deciding reference and come to conclusion that each workman has completed continuous service of 240 days within preceding 12 months from date of termination. He also submitted that documents which are produced by petitioners have not been properly considered and examined by labour Court. The record which has been produced and details given by petitioners, from that none of the workman has completed 240 days continuous service as required under Section 25B of the I.D.Act. He submitted that service has not been terminated by petitioners but, workmen themselves have stopped coming and there is no written order of termination has been issued by petitioners against workmen. He also submitted a specific letter was written to present workmen for joining the work but, respondents workmen did not reply to the same and did not turn up for the work and therefore, labour Court has committed gross error in granting relief in favour of respondents workmen. The benefit of continuity of service is not granted by labour Court in favour of respondents workmen while only granting reinstatement, that is also bad and contrary to law. The workmen have not established relationship between petitioners and workmen as an employer and employee. The burden of proof is upon workman to prove 240 days continuous service as required under Section 25B of the I.D.Act which has not been proved by workmen. Therefore, burden is not shifted upon employer to disprove these facts. The respondents workmen were daily wager who were engaged for some work and when no work was available, they were not provided the work by petitioners, that cannot consider to be a termination of such workmen. Therefore, according to his submissions, the labour Court has committed gross error in giving direction of reinstatement in favour of respondents workmen. He submitted that as and when work required, by letter dated 21.10.1991, 12.11.1991 and 18.12.2991 request was made to workmen to report for duty but workmen have not reported for duty. Therefore, labour Court has committed gross error in allowing reference in favour of respondents workmen. He also submitted that details of presence which were prepared on basis of documents Exh.35 to 49 where daily list of daily workmen for one month period has been produced on record as referred in Para.6 of the award which has not been properly appreciated by Labour Court. Except that, no other submission is made by learned AGP Mr.Sharma on behalf of petitioners.