STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. THAKORE MOGHJIJI VIRCHANDJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Ankur Oza learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent no.1.

(2.) With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

(3.) Challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India is to the award of the Labour Court dtd. 16/1/2020, by which, the Labour Court has awarded reinstatement with full back-wages to the respondent-workman. The award of the Labour Court would indicate that the respondent-workman had filed a statement of claim stating that he had worked for over a period of 10 years as a workman with the petitioner and was removed from service on 1/9/1999 without following the procedure under Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act ('the Act' for short). A written statement was filed by the petitioner at Exh.11 denying that the workman had worked for period of 240 days in each year of service. It was their case that a notice of 20/5/1999 was given paying compensation and therefore there was no violation of provisions of Sec. 25F of the Act. Perusal of the award would indicate that the employer-petitioner herein had produced details of the attendance of the petitioner at mark-16/1 upto 1996. The Labour Court found that in the year 1996 the respondent-workman had completed 109 days. At mark 16/2 and 16/3 , a notice was produced showing that 25 workmen were issued notices of retrenchment and compensation was paid. On examining these documents, the Labour court found that except for producing the attendance sheets for the years 1994 to 1996, nothing was produced on record to show that the petitioner had not worked for the years 1996 to 1999. In fact, from the stand of the petitioner itself who had pleaded that they had given retrenchment notice in the year 1999, the Labour Court on examination of marks 16/2 and 16/3 found that all the 25 workmen to whom retrenchment notices were issued, the name of the respondent-workman did not figure in the list. The Labour Court therefore held that apart from not being able to dislodge the claim of the respondent that he had worked for a period of 240 days in each year of service and on the basis of the notice of 20/5/1999 and the documents at mark 16/1 and 16/2 which did not include the name of the petitioner, the Labour court awarded reinstatement with full back-wages.