RANGE FOREST OFFICER Vs. GALABHAI KALUBHAI DAMOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned AGP Mr. A.L. Sharma for petitioner. This petition is filed by petitioner - Range Forest Officer, Vistaran Range, Santrampur (West) Divda Colony challenging award passed by Labour Court, Godhra in Reference No. 525 of 1999 Exh. 23 dated 14th May, 2010 wherein labour court has granted relief of reinstatement with continuity of service with 50 per cent back wages for interim period.

(2.) BRIEF facts of present petition, as per list of evidence, are to the effect that an industrial dispute has been raised by present workman before Assistant Labour Commissioner, Godhra which was referred to for adjudication by Assistant Labour Commissioner to Labour Court, Godhra for adjudicating issue as to whether workman is required to be reinstated on his original post with full back wages with continuity of service and with payment of salary for days workman did not work or not. In Said reference, respondent workman filed statement of claim wherein it was contended that he falls under definition of workman, whereas petitioner falls under the definition of an industry as per sec. 2(s) and 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 respectively. It has also been stated by respondent workman that he was working with petitioner department since from 1.1.1991 and was paid monthly salary of Rs.1100/ -. It has been further stated by respondent workman that he was discharging his duties very sincerely inspite of that he was orally terminated from service on 30.9.1998 without any notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation. It has been also stated by respondent workman that juniors to him were kept on duty even though petitioner has terminated service of workman. It has also been stated that illegally terminating services of respondent, by petitioner committed breach of section 25(F) and (H) of Industrial Disputes Act and hence respondent workman had prayed for reinstatement to his original post with full back wages. In said reference, by way of filing written statement, petitioner has stated that application made by respondent was not true and correct and onus of proof lies on respondent workman to prove contention raised in statement of claim. It has also been stated in written statement that respondent workman has failed to produce any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that respondent workman worked for 240 days in any of year. Petitioner has also stated that after considering statement of claim, written statement, deposition and other evidence which are on record of case, Labour Court, Godhra vide its award, dated 14.5.2010 passed in Reference (LCG) No. 525/1999 partly allowed reference of respondent and directed to reinstate respondent with 50% back wages and continuity of service with all consequential benefits within a period 30 days. Therefore, petitioner has filed this petition before this court under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging said award made by labour court, Godhra.

(3.) I have considered submissions made by learned AGP Mr. Sharma on behalf of petitioner. I have also perused impugned award passed by Labour Court, Godhra.