STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BABUBHAI SARDARBHAI VALVAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the judgement and award dated 15th October 2009 passed by Labour Court, Godhra, in Reference (LCG) No.353 of 1994 whereby the Labour Court directed the petitioner to give Rs.35000/- to the respondent workman against reinstatement and back wages.

(2.) The respondent was working under the present petitioner from 1st June 1991. His services came to be terminated by oral order dated 16th May 1995. The respondent therefore raised a dispute which culminated into Reference (LCG) No.353 of 1994. The Labour Court vide judgement and award dated 31st July 2000 allowed the same and directed that the respondent be reinstated in service with full back wages. However, the petitioner has chosen to file Misc. Civil Application No.62 of 2001 for setting aside the exparte decree. The said application was allowed with a cost of Rs.7000/-. However, the said amount was not paid. Thereafter imposing a cost of Rs.8000/- the matter was restored and thereafter on 8th October 2004 the Labour Court passed an order directing reinstatement with full back wages and costs of Rs.10000/-. Surprisingly again a review application was filed and ultimately the Labour Court has filed the aforesaid award of Rs.35,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.

(3.) It is required to be noted that in the earlier two judgements the Labour Court had discussed the matter in detail and came to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled to reinstatement with full back wags. However, the Tribunal reappreciated the evidence and recorded a finding that the respondent has not proved that he had completed 240 days of service. But, the fact that the respondent was working with the petitioner was not disputed. Therefore, the Tribunal, looking to the fact that 15 years have passed, ordered for lump sum compensation to the respondent workman. Though the petitioner made an attempt to show that the respondent is not entitled to any amount, in view of the evidence on record it was a futile exercise. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, though it appears that the said compensation is on lower side, in this petition it is not open to this court to enhance it. I am of the view that no infirmity is pointed out by the petitioner so as to warrant interference with the judgement and award of the Labour Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.