CHIEF OFFICER Vs. CHANDRAKANT HARILAL RAKHOLIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia for the petitioner in all these petitions filed by the Keshod Municipality. It was submitted by her that the petitioner has challenged in all these petitions, individual award passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh against the petitioner Keshod Municipality. It was her submission that in this group of petitions, common contentions have been raised by the petitioner Municipality and, therefore, this court may decide the same by common order. She has also submitted that save and except the petition being special civil application no. 630 of 2002 wherein the labour court has made the award of reinstatement with 20 per cent of the back wages, in all the remaining petitions, the labour court has made the award of reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages and, therefore, save and except this little distinction in the award made by the labour court, there is no any other distinction in this group of petitions and identical questions have been raised and, therefore, same may be decided and disposed of by way of common order.

(2.) Considering the request made by the learned advocate Ms. Mandavia for the petitioner, this group of petitions has been decided by way of common order.

(3.) During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the learned advocate Ms. Mandavia that the labour court has committed gross error in granting the relief in favour of the worker concerned who were appointed as a daily wagers. According to her, there was a mere technical breach of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the labour court has granted the relief of reinstatement and that too with full back wages in favour of the workmen concerned save and except the workman in special civil application no.630 of 2002 for the intervening period which covers the period of more than six years or so and in one case, the period is more than ten years. According to her submission, the petitioner Keshod Municipality who was the first party before the labour court is a statutory authority and a public body and such a statutory and public body has to suffer the financial burden by paying idle wages in the form of back wages and ultimately public exchequer has to suffer. It was also submitted by her that there was some lapse on the part of the petitioner municipality in not leading proper evidence and to produce the documentary evidence before the labour court. According to her, it was the duty of the labour court to see that the amount of back wages cannot be granted against the public body without taking the work from the workman concerned. She has submitted that the labour court ought to have followed the principle of No work No Pay while granting relief of reinstatement in favour of the respondent workman concerned in this group of petitions. She has submitted that in such a situation, some interference of this Court is necessary while exercising the powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. She has also submitted that by passage of time, the posts are not available in the petitioner municipality and the funds are also not available with the municipality but this aspect has not been taken into account by the labour court while passing the awards in question.