MEDICAL OFFICER Vs. SAVJIBHAI TRIKAMBHAI KANSAGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar in Reference No.143 / 1997 dated 22/12/2000, wherein the labour court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 25 % backwages for interim period.

(2.) . Learned advocate Mr.Nirzar Desai has raised contention that the respondent workman was daily rated driver, was not appointed on permanent basis and moreover, the respondent workman was not qualified according to the rules. It is also his contention that the respondent workman was not recruited as per the rules and his services were terminated because of the appointment of the regular driver in his place and therefore, services of the respondent workman has been terminated as per the appointment order and therefore, there is no need of compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted that all these contentions were raised in the written statement in para-1 and 5. Therefore, the labour court has committed gross error while not considering all these aspects and therefore, the award impugned passed by the labour court, is required to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) . Learned advocate Mr.P.H.Pathak appearing on behalf of the respondent workman on caveat has submitted that there was no dispute of the period of employment served by the respondent workman from 1994 to 1997. Not only this, there was no disputed between the parties that he has completed 240 days during the period of one year. It is also undisputed between the parties that the provisions of Section 25-F have not been complied with by the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr.Pathak has also submitted that witness Dr.Pravinchandra Gautam of the petitioner has been examined vide Exh.25 who has deposed before the labour court that in place of the respondent workman, one Praffulbhai Bhadani has been appointed. He also submitted that it is not clear from the record whether he was regular or temporary. He also submitted that reason given by the Dr.Gautam in his deposition that reason for termination is regular appointment of Prafulbhai Bhadani but in reality, according to his deposition, the jeep become useless and therefore, services of the respondent workman has been terminated. Therefore, this is clear admission on the part of the witness of the petitioner. It is also submitted that Section 25-F is mandatory provision as per the view taken by the Apex Court in reported decision in AIR 2000 SC 454. The compliance of Section 25-F is must, otherwise, the order of termination becomes null and void. It is also submitted that the respondent workman has admitted for some time he was gainfully employed and this aspect has been taken into account by the labour court and accordingly not awarded 75 % backwages to the respondent workman and merely granted 25 % backwages for interim period. Therefore, it is submitted that the entire award passed by the labour court is based upon the evidence which was on record and as such, no error has been committed by the labour court or there is no jurisdictional error and therefore, interference by this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution is not called for.