BHAGABHAI RAYSINGHBHAI BARIYA Vs. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Soaham Joshi learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent - State. With consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, this matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) In the present petition, the award of the Labour Court is under challenge by the petitioners, by which, the Labour Court has awarded compensation of Rs.50,000.00 to petitioner rather than reinstatement with backwages as prayed for by the petitioner.

(3.) Facts of the present case are as under. The petitioner, Bhagabhai Raysinghbhai Bariya, filed a Statement of Claim before the Labour Court, Godhra, at Exh.3. It was his case before the Labour Court that he was engaged by the respondents as a daily wager cum watchmen from the year 1980. He was working at the Panam Dam Colony. It was his case that during the course of month, he would work for entire month, 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. He was paid Rs.35.00 per day. It was his case that his services were put to an end from March 1999 without following the procedure and without awarding compensation. Violation of Secs.25(G) & 25(H) was also pleaded. The respondent - employer, filed a Written Statement at Exh.8. It was their case that the reference of the present petitioner was barred by limitation. Further 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.10. In the reference which was decided by the Labour Court at Exh.13, on a demand made by the workmen, attendance records of the last three years were not 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 seven years in raising the dispute.