EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. RAJNIKANT DALPATRAM BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the employer and the workman, respectively. The petition filed by the employer is against the same award dtd. 26/5/2011 passed in Reference (L.C.R.) No. 98 of 2002 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Court No. 2, Rajkot.

(2.) The challenge by the employer (in Special Civil Application No. 614 of 2012) is for the purpose of the continuity granted by the Labour Court, whereas challenge by the workman (in Special Civil Application No. 7392 of 2012) in is for the purpose of back-wages, which were refused by the Labour Court.

(3.) Learned advocate for the employer submitted that the continuity granted to the petitioner after ordering reinstatement could not have been granted, as it has been the contention of the employer from the beginning that the workman was employed as a part-time Daily Wager and with regards to the record to demonstrate that the workman was hired only for part-time basis as a Helper on a monthly wages of Rs.1,000.00 was engaged during the earthquake, and therefore, being in the part-time on need base basis, the continuity ought not to have been granted.