GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD Vs. KANTILAL HIRALAL KHARVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia for petitioner Gujarat Maritime Board through its Port Officer, Mandvi (Kutch).

(2.) Petitioner Board has challenged award passed by Labour Court, Kachchh at Bhuj in Reference (LCB) No. 45 of 2000 Exh. 43 dated 27.3.2009. Labour Court has partly allowed reference and set aside termination of respondent workman by holding it as illegal, improper, unjust, ultra vires, against principles of natural justice and directed petitioner to reinstate respondent workman in service, with continuity of service with 50 per cent back wages for interim period.

(3.) Ms. Mandavia, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner has raised contention before this Court that according to respondent, he was serving with petitioner board since 25 years as seaman and on 18.1.2000, he was illegally retrenched by petitioner without following Section 25F of ID Act, 1947. It was also pointed out that petitioner has not followed principles of last come first go and other juniors were continued in service and, thereby he has prayed that he should be reinstated with full back wages for interim period. She further submitted that detailed written statement was filed by petitioner contending that it is absolutely wrong fact that respondent was working since 25 years and for that, he should produce necessary evidence on record. It was also contended by petitioner before labour court, Bhuj that respondent has not completed 240 days' continuous service and he was employed as and when work was required and, therefore, she submitted that labour court has committed gross error in granting relief in favour of present respondent workman. She also submitted that it is duty of workman to produce evidence before court and he should establish that he has completed 240 days continuous service but in facts of this case, respondent has not produced anything, however, labour court has believed that he has completed 240 days continuous service which is not proper. She also submitted that labour court ought to have considered deposition of witness Shri Chaturbhai Mohanbhai Rathod Exh. 27 in which he has categorically mentioned that respondent was given work for one year or two years and respondent workman has not passed selection process. It is also deposed that respondent was given work as and when it was available and from 1975 to 2000, he has not served with petitioner board. She also submitted that labour court has wrongly believed that respondent was working since 1995 with petitioner. Statement which was produced at Exh. 18/1 is wrongly interpreted by labour court. In short, respondent has not completed 240 days continuous service and, therefore, question of compliance of Section 25F of ID Act, 1947 does not arise. Labour Court has wrongly relied upon decisions cited by respondent which were not applicable to facts of present case. She also submitted that labour court has wrongly believed that other persons who are junior to respondent were continued in service. She submitted that it is important to note that respondent has not given names of such juniors. She submitted that it is duty of respondent workman to give names of the persons, date of joining of such persons and post of said persons. She further submitted that only after said three facts are established, labour court can say that there is violation of Section 25G and H of ID Act, 1947. She submitted that respondent workman has not established breach of Section 25G and H of ID Act, 1947. In short, her submission is that labour court has committed error in granting relief of reinstatement and 50 per cent back wages for interim period and, therefore, interference of this Court is necessary. Except that, no other submission is made by learned Advocate Ms. Mandavia before this Court and no decision has been cited by her before this Court in support of submissions recorded herein above.