EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RAJKOT Vs. PRAKASH LAXMIDAS GUJJAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.H.C.Patel, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.A.K.Clerk, learned advocate for the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference No.1487 / 1988 dated 2 7/07/1993. The labour court has set aside the termination order dated 30/06/1985 and granted reinstatement in service on original post within period of one month from the date of publication of the award and also directed to the petitioner to pay full backwages with effect from 30th June, 1985 till the workman is reinstated in service by the petitioner.

(3.) Learned AGP Mr.H.C.Patel on behalf of the petitioner has raised contention that the date of termination is 30/06/1985 and the dispute was raised by the workman concerned in the year 1988 and thereafter Reference was made to the Labour Court on 15th June, 1988. Therefore, the Reference is bad on the ground of delay and the labour court has committed gross error in adjudicating such delayed and belated Reference. The second contention raised by learned AGP Mr.H.C.Patel that the respondent workman was appointed as Daily Wager for a limited period and he was not appointed on the post of Typist because for appointing any person on the post of Typist, prescribed Recruitment Rules and proper procedure require to be followed by the petitioner and therefore the respondent workman was not appointed on the post of Typist but he had worked as Labourer with the petitioner. He also submitted that the services of the respondent workman was not terminated by the department but the workman left the job without informing the Department. He also submitted that the respondent workman has not completed 240 days continuous service and therefore Section 25-F was not required to be followed by the petitioner. He also submitted that the labour court has committed error in granting full backwages with effect from 30th June, 1985 though the Reference was made on 15/06/1988. He also submitted that the daily wager, otherwise also not getting work regularly and therefore, he is not entitled to full backwages of the interim period. He also submitted that being technical breach which has been believed by the labour court, the workman is not entitled to full backwages of the interim period.