EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. YOGESH P PAREKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Heard Mr.M.K.Patel, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Though Notice of Rule has been served on the other side but none appears and no appearance is filed on behalf of the respondent and therefore, this matter is taken up for final hearing in absence of respondent.

(2.) . In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference No.1512 / 1987 dated 17/09/1993, wherein the labour court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages from 21-12-86 till the date of actual reinstatement in service.

(3.) . Learned AGP Mr.M.K.Patel has submitted that the respondent workman was appointed by the petitioner on periodical basis and as and when term of each order has come to an end, his services on each occasion has been terminated by the petitioner. Each order of appointment is new appointment and therefore, the petitioner has not given any further order to the respondent workman that does not amount to termination and therefore, the respondent workman has not been paid any benefit. The labour court has committed gross error in not considering the contentions raised by the petitioner that such periodical appointment if the duration is come to an end, then automatically service of the workman is terminated by afflux of time. He also submitted that in all the respondent workman has worked for one year and nine months and he was working as Daily wager. Even though the labour court has granted full backwages of the interim period. He also submitted that the labour court has ignored that the petitioner is Government establishment and the respondent was working as daily wager for a limited period for one year nine months and despite this, full backwages for a period of six years has been granted to him. He also submitted that at the time of issuing Rule by this Cout on 6/09/1994, this Court has not granted any stay against the reinstatement but stay has been granted against backwages only and, therefore, the respondent workman must have been reinstated in service by now.