GEMALBHAI MOTIBHAI SOLANKI Vs. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. With consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, these matters are taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) In all these petitions, the awards of the Labour Court in the respective petitions are under challenge by the petitioners, by which, the Labour Court has awarded compensation to each of the petitioners rather than reinstatement with backwages as prayed for by the petitioners.

(3.) For the purposes of facts and arguments, Mr.Dipak Dave, learned counsel for the petitioners, has relied on the facts of Special Civil Application No. 34 of 2021. The petitioner, Gemabhai M. Solanki, filed a Statement of Claim before the Labour Court, Godhra, at Exh.4. It was his case before the Labour Court that he was engaged by the respondents as a daily wager from 12/1/1980. He was working at the Bhadar Canal Sub-Division. It was his case that during the course of month, he would work for a period ranging from 22 to 25 days, for which, though no appointment orders are issued, attendance sheets were maintained. Their services were terminated without following the procedure under Sec.25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. They were paid Rs.30.00 per day. Their salaries /wages were paid by drawing vouchers. It was his case that his services were put to an end from 2/12/2000 without following the procedure and without awarding compensation. Violation of Secs.25(G) and 25(H) was also pleaded. The respondent - employer, filed a Written Statement at Exh.8. It was their case that the work at the Bhadar Canal Project was closed that they would not fall within the definition of "Industry " within Sec.2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. That no attendance sheet or appointment letters needed to be issued to such employees as they were working as daily wagers. The petitioner was examined at Exh.11. In the reference which was decided by this Court, namely, Reference No. 108 of 2005, at Exh.6, on a demand made by the workmen, attendance records of the last three years were produced by the employer. At that time, the Labour Court was therefore faced with the issue of taking a decision whether the petitioner- workman deserves to be reinstated and also if his termination was bad. On the aspect of delay, the Labour Court observed that there was a delay of three years in raising the dispute.