EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. PRAVINSINH NATWARSINH SOLANKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts of the case are that the deceased workman ­ Natwarsinh Pravinsinh Solanki was appointed as clerk from 1971 in the pay-scale of Rs.260/400 and his services came to be terminated without any notice or without any payment of compensation. THErefore, he raised dispute under I.D. Act. Such dispute came to be referred to Labour Court for adjudication being No.773 of 1987 and subsequently, it was renumbered as Reference (LCB) No.210/1990. THE Labour Court, at the conclusion of the Reference, found that by way of artificial break, appointments were given for 29 days on continuous basis, but the workman had completed, in one year, services exceeding 240 days and, therefore, there was breach of the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act and without giving notice, he was discontinued. THE Labour Court also recorded that the workman, pending the petition, has expired and, therefore, the reinstatement was not ordered, but the backwages were ordered from 29.4.1987 i.e. the date on which he was terminated till his death i.e. 4.6.2001 and he directed the payment of salary of the aforesaid period to the legal heirs of the deceased and the award was passed with the cost of Rs.250/-. THE said award is challenged by the petitioners in the present petition.

(2.) HEARD Ms.Mandavia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Iyer, learned Counsel for the respondent.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of the hearing, has made available the details of the appointment order issued in favour of the respondent and the perusal thereof also shows that it is only just for giving a break in continuous service, the appointment orders were issued for 29 days. Otherwise, it was not a case where the appointment was really required for 29 days at each point of time.