SAURASHTRA CHEMICALS LIMITED Vs. ARVINDBHAI KARASANBHAI MOTIVARAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present group of appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant - original petitioner has challenged the oral order dtd. 1/7/2022 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 6934 of 2012 and allied matters, by which, the petitions filed by present appellant company came to be dismissed challenging the order dtd. 28/3/2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Junagadh, camp at Porbandar, in Reference (L.C.J.) Nos. 231 of 2001, 229 of 2001 and 230 of 2001, by which, it was held that the action of the appellant company terminating the service of the respondents workmen is illegal, and instead of reinstating the respondents workmen, an amount of Rs.2,34,000.00 (to the applicant of Reference (L.C.J.) No. 231 of 2001), an amount of Rs.4,21,000.00 (to the applicant of Reference (L.C.J.) No. 229 of 2001) and also an amount of Rs.4,36,000.00 (to the applicant of Reference (L.C.J.) No.230 of 2001) has been awarded towards the lump sum compensation and an amount of Rs.1,000.00 has been awarded towards the cost to each applicant.

(2.) The short facts arise from the record are as under:

(3.) Mr. Prateek Bhatia, learned advocate appearing for the appellant - petitioner company, would submit that learned Labour Court as well as learned Single Judge have committed error in treating the respondents workmen as if they were regularly appointed and / or had worked and completed 240 days of continuing service prior to the date of their termination. By taking us through the documents at Exh.38 with regard to the applicant of Reference (L.C.J.) No. 231 of 2001, the documents at Exh. 29 with regard to the applicant of Reference (L.C.J.) No. 229 of 2001 and the documents at Exh.37 with regard to the applicant of Reference (L.C.J.) No. 230 of 2001, learned advocate for the appellant company would submit that it appears from these documents that the respondents workmen have not completed 240 days. He would further submit that the respondents workmen have worked as the "badli worker" and the same has been accepted in the cross-examination by one of the legal heirs of one of the respondent workmen i.e. respondent in Special Civil Application No. 6935 of 2012. By taking us through the cross-examination of widow of respondent workman, he would submit that the widow of the deceased respondent workman has accepted that the respondent workman has worked as a "badli worker" in the appellant company, and therefore, he was entitled to the amount as awarded by learned Labour Court and confirmed by learned Single Judge of this Court.