BHALABHAI MOTIBHAI PAGI Vs. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.Dipak Dave learned advocate for the petitioner and Kurven Desai, learned AGP for the respondent-State.

(2.) The workman has filed the petition challenging the award of the Labour Court, by which, the Labour Court has awarded compensation of Rs.60,000.00

(3.) The workman is aggrieved by the award of compensation, the petition has been filed. Mr.Dipak Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that once the Labour Court categorically came to the conclusion that the termination was bad, and on the basis of evidence even that the petitioners had completed 240 days in each year of service and also having drawn adverse inference against the respondents, that the work was available, compensation could not have been awarded. Reinstatement ought to have followed once the Labour Court had found that there was breach of Sec.25(F) which ought to have been followed. He would rely on a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench rendered in Special Civil Application No. 10316 of 2020 dtd. 13/9/2021 wherein the awards of the Labour Court at Godhra awarding compensation of Rs.72,000.00 was under challenge. Taking the Court to the oral order, he would submit that on similar facts therefore, this Court set aside the orders of compensation relying on the decisions in the case of Kalamuddin M. Ansari vs. Government of India ., reported in 2016 Lawsuit (guj) 508, and directed that the petitioner be reinstated with continuity of service without backwages. Reliance was also placed on a decision in Special Civil Application Nos. 14527 of 2018 and allied matters dtd. 20/1/2022.