MAHANAGARPALIKA, BHAVNAGAR Vs. GIRISHKUMAR PRABHUDAS DABHI DEVUBAG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned judgment and award dtd. 5/9/2006 passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) No.417 of 1999, whereby the petitioner is directed to reinstate the respondent-workman with 25% back wages.

(2.) At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Munshaw, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned award is required to be set aside, since the Labour Court has misdirected itself in ordering the reinstatement, as the department of the petitioner-Corporation i.e. the Bus Traffic Department was already closed down and is now run by a private entrepreneur of Bhavnagar city. He has submitted that in such a circumstance, the reinstatement of the respondent is not possible. It is further submitted that since there was no other work available for the respondent-workman and there was no need of driver, he was not engaged in work and hence, the Labour Court could not have passed the order of reinstatement. He has further invited the attention of the Court to the findings recorded by the Labour Court. It is submitted by him that the violation of Sec. 25F of the Industrial dipsutes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the " I.D. Act "), has not been proved, since it is not proved that the workman had completed 240 days in any of the year, however the retrenchment has been set aside on the ground of violation of provisions of Sec. 25G of the I.D.Act. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw, has finally submitted that in case, the Court decides to confirm the award, at the most, a reasonable compensation can be granted to the respondent-workman.

(3.) Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Vishal Thakker, appearing for the respondent-workman has submitted that the award needs not be required any interference, as the Labour Court, after appreciating the documentary evidence, has concluded that the termination of the respondent-workman was in violation of the provisions of Sec. 25G and H of the I.D.Act. It is further submitted that the Labour Court has in fact perused the seniority list, which was produced before it, and after examination of the seniority position, finding has been given that the workmen, who were at serial No.19 and 46, were retained in service, whereas the respondent-workman was terminated and hence, the award may not be interfered with.