STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MAFATLAL HARGOVANDAS RAJGOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.H.D.Dave, learned AGP for petitioner State of Gujarat and Mr.P.H.Pathak, learned advocate for respondent workman.

(2.) RULE. Mr.P.H.Pathak, learned advocate waives formal service of notice on behalf of the respondent workman. Today, when the matter is called, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, this matter is taken up for final hearing.

(3.) In the present petition, the petitioner - State of Gujarat has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Kalol in Reference No.204 / 1989 dated 12th January, 2000, wherein the labour court has set aside the termination order and granted reinstatement with continuity of service and with full backwages with effect from 17/04/1997. Learned AGP Mr.H.D.Dave on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the respondent workman has not proved before the labour court that he has completed 240 days continuous service within period of twelve months from the date of termination. Mr.Dave, learned AGP has also submitted that the respondent workman was working as Dailywager employee with the petitioner even though the labour court has come to the conclusion that the respondent workman was working as permanent employee and not as daily wager. Therefore, he submits that the labour court has passed the award beyond the terms of the Reference and no such dispute referred by the concerned authority to the labour court which required to be adjudicated. Mr.Dave, learned AGP also submitted that it is the duty of the workman / employee to prove on record that the workman has completed continuous service of 240 days before the labour court but in the instant case, the concerned workman has merely led the oral evidence in the form of his deposition on oath before the labour court, which has been accepted by the labour court. Therefore, in absence of the evidence from the employee, the labour court should not have passed the award granting relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages with effect from 17/04/1997. Therefore, the labour court has committed gross error in granting reinstatement based on the conclusion that provision of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 has been violated. The labour court has committed gross error in coming to the conclusion that the respondent workman was working with the petitioner for more than 10 years. However, there was no evidence to that effect produced by the concerned employee before the labour court. Therefore, there is basic error committed by the labour court which required to be interfered with by this Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution.