AGRICULTURE OFFICER Vs. PRATAPJI HARCHANDJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned AGP Mr. N.D.Gohil for the petitioner State and Mr. D.S. Vasavada, learned advocate for the respondent workman. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner State has challenged the order made by the Labour Court Ahmedabad dated 9.9.1992 in Recovery Application No. 1573 of 1984. Under the said order, the labour court allowed the said recovery application and directed the opponent i.e. present petitioner to pay Rs.28,500.00 to the workman within one month from the date of receipt of the said order and also directed to pay the cost of Rs.500.00 to the workman.

(2.) This petition was admitted by this court by issuing rule thereon returnable on February 17, 1994, by order dated 20.12.1993 and interim relief in terms of para ll(b) was also granted by this court while issuing rule. The respondent workman has filed affidavit in reply to the present petition.

(3.) During the course of hearing of this petition, it was submitted by the learned AGP Mr. N.D. Gohil that the labour court has committed serious error in entertaining the said recovery application. He also submitted that it ought to have been appreciated by the labour court that no order in writing has been given in favour of the respondent workman to work in extra hours and not to enjoy the weekly off or holidays. It was also submitted by him that the Gujarat Agriculture University was taken over by the Agriculture Department of the State of Gujarat on 1st July, 1978 and it is engaged in the research work; the petitioner has to supply water from the different channels of Dantiwada and have to carry out the experiments on the chemical manures, different system of cultivation, different crops, to observe the effects on the land and the growing crops to adopt the scientific methods etc. and hence the labour court ought to have held that the provisions of the ID Act, 1947 would not apply to the petitioner. He also submitted that it ought to have been appreciated by the labour court that the applicant has not done over time work and has never made any such demand and the application was, therefore, not maintainable. Thus, according to his submissions, the labour court has erred in allowing the recovery application. He also submitted that there was no any pre-existing right proved before the labour court and, therefore, the labour court ought not to have made such an order.