BHUPATSINH HARISINGHBHAI VIRSODIYA Vs. COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner -workman under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned award dated 30.01.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No.289/1994, whereby the claim of the petitioner -workman regarding breach of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter be referred to as the "I.D. Act.") has been rejected.

(2.) It is contended by the petitioner that he has rendered the services as a watchman since 01.06.1992 till 03.02.1993 and, thereafter, he has served as a clerk at the Sanatorium, Rajkot. It is further contended by the petitioner that the Labour Court has not considered the facts of earlier service made by the workman as watchman and has erroneously taken into consideration the documents submitted by the respondent. It is also contended by the petitioner that the Labour Court has erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. It is contended by the petitioner that the Labour Court ought to have considered the fact that the workman has worked for 240 days from his initial appointment i.e. from 01.06.1992 till his termination of service in June 1993. It is also contended by the petitioner that the Labour Court has erred in observing that there is no breach of Section 25(G) and (H) of the I.D. Act. It is further contended by the petitioner that the impugned award is contrary to law and perverse one which is required to be quashed and set aside. The petitioner has urged to allow the petition and appropriate order may be passed.

(3.) Heard Mr. Vyom Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.K. V. Gadhia, learned advocate for the respondent at length through video conferencing.