G E B Vs. NARAYANBHAI KALUBHAI BHAMRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.S.P.Hasurkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner Board and Mr.A.K.Clerk, learned advocate for respondent - workman.

(2.) The petitioner Board has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Surat in Reference No.795 / 1995 dated 3/03/2001, wherein Labour Court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service without backwages of the interim period. On date 7th November, 2001, this Court has issued notice to the respondent and granted ad-interim relief in terms of para-6[B] subject to provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter, this matter is taken up for final hearing on admission stage. Hence, RULE. Learned advocate Mr.A.K.Clerk waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent workman.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr.Hasurkar on behalf of the petitioner Board has submitted that the labour court has committed error in coming to the conclusion that inquiry was not initiated before terminating services of the respondent workman and therefore, it amounts simple termination and hence, Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was required to be complied with by the petitioner Board. Mr.Hasurkar, learned advocate has therefore, submitted that this conclusion is erroneous that there was no compliance of Section 25-F of the I.D.Act, 1947 as it was not retrenchment of the workman. Mr.Hasurkar, learned advocate has further submitted that before terminating services of the respondent workman, three notices viz. 18/11/1989, 27th November, 19889 and 8/12/1989 were served but despite this, no response was given by the respondent workman and therefore, ultimately services of the respondent workman came to be terminated on 10/01/1990 under the provisions of Service Regulation 113 of the Gujarat Electricity Board. Therefore, the order of termination passed by the petitioner Board is legal and valid one and interference by the labour court under Section 11-A of the I.D.Act is erroneous and without jurisdiction. Mr.Hasurkar, learned advocate has relied on Service Regulation 113 produced before this Court and pointed out that service regulation has been enacted under the powers of the Electricity Act and it having statutory force and therefore, the powers of summarily terminating services of the workman are with the petitioner Board and same are exercised rightly by the petitioner Board and hence, no illegality has been committed by the petitioner Board while terminating service of the respondent workman. Learned advocate Mr.Hasurkar has also submitted that while exercising the powers under Service Regulation 113, question of holding inquiry does not arise and therefore, the labour court has committed basic error which requires to be interfered with by this Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution.