PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE Vs. K.R.LALPURWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order dated 13.4.2012 passed in Special Civil Application No.11045 of 2002 with Special Civil Application No.2750 of 2003 is under challenge in the present appeal by the employer. By the impugned judgment, the learned single Judge has dismissed the application of the employer wherein they have challenged the order dated 13.5.2002 by the Labour Court, Godhra in Reference No.271 of 1994 reinstating the respondent ­ employee. Such reinstatement was without backwages, but with condition to reinstate the workman at the same place and to pay Rs.500/- as cost of such litigation.

(2.) HEARD learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.Y.V.Shah for the respondent, who is present before Court in view of the notice issued in Civil Application No.8467 of 2012 for condonation of delay. Both the learned counsel have agreed to take upon the appeal for final hearing on merits.

(3.) ON perusal of the impugned award by the Labour Court and judgment of the learned single Judge, it is clear that the respondent was appointed as Multipurpose Health Worker on 1.12.1989 and he served on such post till 12.5.1994 and that the Labour Court on appreciation of evidence as led by the workman as well as by the appellant employer, came to the conclusion that workman has completed 240 days. It is also clear from the record that Labour Court has also given ample opportunity to the employer to prove their case, but the witness of the employer could not produce the relevant register to prove their case. The learned single Judge has also considered that out of existing 50 posts of Multipurpose Health Worker, only 31 posts were filled in and there was vacancy of 19 posts. It has also came on record before the Labour Court that some persons, who had joined as adhoc employees after the present respondents and who were juniors to the present respondent, were made permanent. Therefore, only because respondent has selected different channel of jurisdiction i.e. instead of approaching Labour Court initially he had approached the Civil Court, and when the respondent has worked for 5 years, the decision by the Civil Court and Special Civil Application against such judgment cannot come in way of the workman ­ respondent to get his legitimate right, more particularly, when judgment of such cases were not produced on record.