DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. NANJIBHAI DAHYABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned AGP Mr. A.L. Sharma appearing on behalf of Petitioner and learned advocate Ms. Megha Jani appearing on behalf of Respondent - employee.

(2.) In this matter, Petitioner - Executive Engineer has challenged award passed by Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference No. 231 of 1994 dated 16.11.2006. The Labour Court has granted relief in favour of workman to reinstate him in original post with continuity of service without back wages of interim period.

(3.) Learned AGP Mr. Sharma has raised contentions before this Court that Labour Court has committed gross error in granting relief in favour of Respondent. He also submitted that workman has not completed 240 days continuous service and workman has not produced any reliable documents before Labour Court to prove 240 days continuous service. He further submitted that workman was not appointed by Petitioner on regular basis and workman was working as daily wagers with Petitioner but, have not completed 240 days continuous service. For that, no sufficient material and evidence was produced on record by workman. He further submitted that burden is upon the employee to prove 240 days continuous service by leading proper evidence before Labour Court but, Labour Court has committed gross error which requires interference by this Court. He also raised contention that muster roll was produced by Petitioner but, same has not been properly considered by Labour Court. Therefore, according to his submissions, interference by this Court is required in the award.