MAHENDRABHAI P TRIVEDI Vs. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, JAMNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER - workman, who joined as 'Chokidar' since 15/03/1998, came to be terminated on 01/04/2000, approached the Labour Court by way Reference (LCJ) No.20 of 2001. The said reference came to be rejected by the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Jamnagar by award and order dated 20/02/2008. The impugned award and order is challenged by filing petition on 27/04/2011. The petition is opposed on various grounds, one of them is 'delay'.

(2.) THE High Court issued notice on 06/05/2011 returnable on 20/07/2011. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat, R and B Sub Division, Dwarka filed affidavit -in -reply affirmed on 27/06/2011 wherein the issue of 'delay' is raised. It is after hearing the learned Advocate for the parties the Court issued Rule on 12/08/2011. The Court taking into consideration the nature of dispute involved in the matter ordered that the matter be listed for final hearing on 06/09/2011. Today, the matter is notified for final hearing. Learned Advocate for the petitioner requested that the matter be taken up for final hearing as the petitioner - workman is out of job since 01/04/2000.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to the award and order passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court. The learned Judge has set out the case of the workman in paragraph No.2. The learned Judge has referred to 'statement of claim' (Exh.3) wherein petitioner - workman has stated that, 'he was serving in a Rest House under the control of respondent Nos.1 and 2 (District Development Officer, Jamnagar and Deputy Executive Engineer) since 15/03/1988 and he had worked for 240 days in a year'; that since 01/04/2000 his services were discontinued and he was rendered unemployed; that 'he was neither given any notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation'; that Rest House at Kalyanpur (Dwarka) is still running and the work of 'Chokidar' is also in existence; that after discontinuing service of the petitioner - workman, person who came later, is employed and thus there is violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act; that petitioner had served a notice on 21/09/2006, which was produced before the learned Judge of the Labour Court at Mark 8/1 for reinstating him in service, but no reply was given by the respondent and he was not reinstated.