STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BHANUBEN BHANJIBHAI DHOKIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The present petition is filed by the State of Gujarat, through the Collector, Junagadh, challenging the award passed by the Labour Court in Reference (LCJ) No. 44/1995 dated 1/6/1999, whereby the respondent-employee was ordered to be reinstated on her original post treating her services to be continuous one with all consequential benefits as well as with full back-wages and cost of Rs.1000.00 of the proceedings.

(2.) . Mr. R.V. Desai, learned AGP appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the award of the learned Judge is vitiated on more than one counts, namely, the office of the Collector wherein the respondent-workman was serving is not an industry. Not only that, as per the written submissions made before the Labour Court, she was given appointment on 30th August, 1991 as Part Time Hamal for one hour on fixed salary of Rs.180.00 per month. Thereafter, the said period of work was increased to 4 hours a day and the salary was correspondingly increased to Rs. 400.00 per month, but, as her services were not found satisfactory, the same were terminated with effect from 1/4/1994 by an oral order. Mr. Desai, learned advocate, submitted that in view of the same, the learned Judge has committed an error in passing the award in question granting reinstatement to the respondent-employee with full back-wages as well as all consequential benefits.

(3.) . Mr. Anshin H. Desai, learned advocate appearing for the respondent-employee, submitted that this Court by an order dated 8th May, 2000 was pleased to grant interim relief qua back-wages alone on a condition that the petitioner shall reinstate the respondent-workman in service with effect from 1/6/1999 within 4 weeks from the date of the order and that the respondent-workman shall be paid full wages with effect from 1/6/1999 till the actual date of reinstatement of respondent-employee within six weeks from the date of the order. Mr. A. H. Desai submitted that he has instructions that so far as that order dated 8th May, 2000 is concerned, the present petitioner has complied with so far as reinstatement is concerned. He has also pointed out that the present petitioner has filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the said order dated 8/5/2000, but, as there is a delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal of 166 days, a Civil Application is filed for condonation of delay and the notice of that Civil Application is served upon the present respondent-employee.