STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VISHNUJI SURSINGJI THAKORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, first party in Reference (LCA) No. 2086 of 1995 in the Court of Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amedabad, has approached this Court by way of this petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia challenging the award & order passed by the Labour Court, where under the Court has while partly allowing the reference directed the petitioners to reinstate the workman with 50% of backwages without any costs vide award & order dated 29/12/2004.

(2.) THE facts in brief leading to filing this petition as could be culled out from the award & order and memo of the petition could be set out as under for the sake of convenience. The workman claimed that he was in service of the employer since last 8 years prior to his unceremonious termination and he was discharging his duties as Auto Cleaner. On account of his illness since 5/4/1994 he could not attend the duties and the ailment lasted for 7 to 8 months, therefore he was unable to join duties. Thereafter, when he went to join duties with certificate of private doctor, he was not permitted to resume duties and subsequently he was called to resume duties on 16/1/1995. Thus he resumed duty on 23/1/1995 and he worked till 4/2/1995. On 5/2/1995 he was orally informed that he would be relieved of his duties and he was sent letter on 14/3/21995 indicating that as he had unauthorizedly remained absent for all the period his services were terminated. No inquiry whatsoever was ever conducted, no chargesheet was issued, no opportunity for explanation was granted and no provision of section 25F of I.D. Act was followed. Hence the workman was constrained to raise industrial dispute which was referred to competent court where it was registered as (LCA) 2086/1995, wherein after recording evidence the Labour Court came to a conclusion that the workman's claim qua reinstatement was required to be allowed and accordingly it was allowed. However on the question of backwages are concerned, though the workman remained unemployed, it cannot be believed that the workman would have remained idle without earning anything and therefore 50 % backwages was ordered vide order in award dated 29/12/2004, which is subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

(3.) SHRI Desai, learned counsel for the workman contended that it would not be correct to submit on the part of learned AGP that workman was adhoc as could be seen form two orders to which he has invited Court's attention and contended that these two orders indicate that the workman was no more an adhoc employee and he was in fact discharging his duties continuously since 1987. There is finding to this effect by the Labour Court also that workman has completed 240 days in each year and in light of this finding that the workman has put in 5 years continuous service, it would not be justified to say that the workman was an adhoc, but the workman was daily rated employee. Therefore this Court may not interfere with the order in award of the Labour Court and the petition be dismissed.