HIMADRI TEXTILE MILLS Vs. JITENDRA HIRABHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. K.V. Gadhia waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) The respondent workman was serving as Welder-coolie in the Engineering Department of the petitioner company. According to the respondent workman, he was discharged from service w.e.f. July 23, 1984. After following the requisite procedure, he raised industrial dispute as required under the provisions of Bombay Industrial Relation Act, 1946 (for short 'B.I.R. Act'). The Labour Court after recording the evidence and after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the respondent workman was a 'badli' worker working in the Engineering Department of the petitioner Company. On over- all appreciation of evidence, the Labour Court directed that the respondent workman be reinstated in service as 'badli' worker in the Engineering Department of the petitioner Company and he be paid the amount of back wages which the respondent workman would have earned had his name been retained in the list of 'badli' workers. The Labour Court has passed the order accordingly on June 7, 1988.

(3.) The petitioner Company felt aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Labour Court and preferred appeal before the Industrial Court under the relevant provisions of B.I.R. Act. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. While dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner Company, the Appellate Court took into consideration the contention raised by the respondent workman that he was a regular employee of the petitioner Company and not a 'badli' worker. Be it noted that the respondent workman had not filed any appeal against the decision of the Labour Court. In the appeal filed by the petitioner Company, the aforesaid contention raised by the respondent workman was taken into consideration by the Industrial Court and while rejecting the appeal, the Industrial Court directed that the respondent workman was working as Welder -coolie in the Mechanical Sec. of the petitioner Company and gave declaration to that effect. It is this order passed by the Industrial Court on July 21, 1990 which is under challenge in this petition filed by the petitioner Company.