DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. HARESH RATILAL PARIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.D.G.Chauhan, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.U.M. Shashtri, learned advocate for respondent No.1 as well as Mr.M.R.Shah, learned advocate for respondent No.2.

(2.) In the present petition, petitioner has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Godhara in Reference NO.120 / 1994 dated 30/07/1999, wherein the labour court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service without backwages of the interim period. The labour court, Godhara has granted relief against the petitioner which has given rise to filing of this petition.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr.D.G.Chauhan appearing on behalf of the petitioner Board has submitted that the respondent workman was appointed in the year 1984 as daily rated employee and the respondent workman was appointed for repairing and maintenance of supply of the water in Godhara in summer season. It is further submitted that he was not appointed as Operator and after work was over, his services came to be terminated and as per the Labour Court award, one Operator Mr.C.P.Thakor was appointed by the Board and at present also he is performing his duties at Godhara Nagar Palika. Mr.Chauhan, learned advocate has submitted that during pendency of the Reference vide Exh.7 the respondent workman has given Purshis to join Godhara Nagar Palika as the party because the work has been handed over along with staff to the Godhara Nagar Palika as party in the Reference. Notice was served on the Godhara Nagar Palika vide Exh.15 and thereafter, request for adjournment was made and the same was granted by the labour court. Learned advocate Mr.D.G.Chauhan has also submitted that according to the Board, the entire administration along with staff has been handed over to Godhara and inspite of two notices vide Exh.9 and 26 served on Godhara Nagar Palika, none remained present on their behalf and no written statement has been filed by Godhara Nagar Palika, so also, no oral evidence led by Godhara Nagar Palika. Therefore, learned advocate Mr.Chauhan has submitted that it is undisputed facts between the respondent workman and the petitioner that entire work which was taken by the Board on behalf of the Nagar Palika from the very beginning and after completion of that, ultimately it was handed over to the Nagar Palika with effect from 1/12/1993 along with staff and therefore, the respondent workman who was carrying out particular work relating to Godhara Nagar Palika of repairing and maintenance of the water supply and therefore, if at all, order of reinstatement is passed by the labour court, such order is required to be implemented by Godhara Nagar Palika who was party before the Labour Court. Learned advocate Mr.Chauhan has also submitted that after completion of said work and after handing over the work to Godhara Nagar Palika, now the petitioner Board is not having any such work which can be performed by the workman concerned. Therefore, he submits that the labour court has committed gross error while not considering the oral evidence of the workman who deposed before the labour court that work of water supply and repairing, wherein the workman was working has already been handed over to Godhara Nagar Palika with effect from 1st December, 1993. Learned advocate Mr.Chauhan has also submitted that this contention was already raised by the petitioner before the Labour Court that now the scheme is not with the petitioner and it was handed over to the respondent No.2 and though two notices served on Godhara Nagar Palika, the municipality has not appeared before the labour court and therefore also, the labour court has committed gross error in granting relief in favour of the respondent workman against petitioner Board. Therefore, the submissions in short that the award is required to be quashed and set aside so far it relates to the petitioner.