DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER Vs. PANKAJBHAI NANJIBHAI DODIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned advocates for the parties.

(2.) RULE. Mr. Gohil, learned advocate for Mr. Supehia, learned advocate for the respondent waives service of RULE on behalf of respondent. At the request of learned advocates for the parties, RULE is fixed forthwith.

(3.) LEARNED advocate for the petitioners contended that looking to the facts, circumstances of the case and especially in view of the fact that workman was only a part timer with the organization and rendered only four years service and he subsequently retrenched, which was effected by following due procedure of law, has remained unchallenged. The order of reinstatement cannot be said to be sustainable and hence the same is required to be quashed and set aside. LEARNED advocate for the petitioners further submitted that at the best if the court is of the view that there is a breach of provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act and other provisions of the I.D. Act, then, it is a case where appropriate compensation in lieu of the reinstatement should be the order. He submits that the Court, if comes to the conclusion that workman does not deserve reinstatement and in lieu thereof, he is required to be granted some compensation, then, the Court may pass appropriate order bearing in mind the original tenure of service and nature of service rendered by the workman and fact that his subsequent termination has remained unchallenged. LEARNED advocate for the petitioner in support of his submission, relied on the judgment in case of Management of Nilpur Tea Estate Vs. State of Assam and others, reported in 1996 AIR SC 737.