SUNIL BHALCHANDRA JANI Vs. GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.D.S.Vasavada, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.M.G.Doshit, learned advocate on behalf of the respondent - Board.

(2.) In the present petition, the petitioner workman has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Vadodara in Reference No.612 / 1984 dated 2/03/1993. Initially, this Court has issued RULE and expedited hearing of the matter by order dated 27/10/1993. On behalf of the respondent, affidavit-in-reply has been filed, against which, rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner and same are on record.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr.Vasavada appearing on behalf of the petitioner workman has submitted that the labour court has committed gross error in rejecting the Reference of the petitioner on the ground that he was not working on a permanent post of Tracer and he has not completed continuous service of 240 days in a year and therefore, Section 25-F is not required to be complied with. Mr.Vasavada, learned advocate has submitted that period in which the petitioner workman had worked with the respondent Board is not in dispute between the parties. He also submits that the actual working days of the petitioner, if taken into consideration from any angle, the petitioner workman has completed 240 days continues service. He has also submitted that from the date of termination, in last preceding 12 months also the petitioner workman has completed 240 days continuously and even according to the calender year also the workman has completed 240 days service. It is also case of the petitioner that even from the date of termination, he has completed 240 days and therefore, in any way from these three angles, the petitioner workman was in continues service with the respondent and completed 240 days service within meaning of Section 25 [B] of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. But this aspect has been grossly ignored by the labour court on account of misreading and misconception of law. The labour court has committed gross error while rejecting the Reference of the petitioner workman. Mr.Vasavada has also submitted that the petitioner workman was qualified for temporary post of Tracer and this aspect has been mentioned in award in para-6 on page.21. He also submitted that no doubt periodical appointments were given to the petitioner workman but said termination is prior to 1984 and therefore, provision of Section 2[oo][bb] of the Act is not applicable at all. Mr.Vasavada, learned advocate has relied on one decision of this Court reported in case of BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD, BARODA V. R.V.KRISHNA RAO reported in 1990 [1] LLJ pg.87. Therefore, Mr.Vasavada, learned advocate submits that it is case of clear and apparent error on the face of the record which requires to be interfered by this Court while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.