BHAVNAGAR AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs.

(2.) At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Panchal, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned award is an ex-parte award, since no one remained present on behalf of the respondent-workman. He has submitted that the respondent-workman in fact has voluntarily abandoned the job since, no permission was granted by the State Government for regularisation in service. He has submitted that the petitioner also passed a Resolution dtd. 12/4/2001 recommending to regularise the respondent-workman, subject to approval of the State Government. He has submitted that there was various communications entered by the petitioner before the State authorities for granting approval of regularising of the respondent workman, however no such approval was received. He has further submitted that the State Government did not respond to their correspondence and ultimately the respondent-workman voluntarily left the job. He has further submitted that the respondent-workman had not completed 240 days in the preceding year and the termination has been set aside for violation of provisions of Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act ) which is illegal. Thus, he has submitted that the award may be set aside.

(3.) Per contra, learned advocate Mr.T.R.Mishra, appearing for the respondent-workman has submitted that the award does not require any interference. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra has seriously objected to the submission that the aforesaid award is ex-parte, since the respondent-workman has filed the written statement, which was examined by the Labour Court. He has submitted that the respondent-workman had worked for 240 days in a year and an evidence with regard to his appointment such as identity card etc., was produced before the labour Court, hence the award may not be set aside.