STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. NIRMALBHAI GELABHAI CHAVADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TODAY during the course of hearing of Civil Application, the parties have given their consent to dispose of the main petition today. Hence, the main petition is heard and is being disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) BY way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has inter alia prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and award dated March 30, 2010 passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No.274 of 2006, whereby the Labour Court partly allowed the Reference and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman without continuity of service and without any back wages.

(3.) HAVING considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and the documentary evidence produced on record as well as the averments made in the petition, it transpires that the Labour Court after appreciating the pros and cons of the matters has rightly arrived at the conclusion. The Labour Court has rightly considered the documentary evidence produced on record and granted only reinstatement without continuity of service and without any back wages. It is pertinent to note that it is proved from record that the respondent-workman had served continuously in view of the provisions of section 25-B of the Act. Further, it has been proved that the respondent had completed 240 days of service as per the mandatory provisions of the Act. In that view of the matter, the petitioner was required to follow the provisions of section 25-F of the Act, which has not been done so in the present case. The Labour Court has rightly observed that though the respondent-workman had completed 240 days of service as per the provisions of the Act, he was neither issued any retrenchment notice nor was he paid any retrenchment compensation nor was he paid any amount in lieu of notice period and therefore, the petitioner committed breach of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Further, it is rightly observed that by the Labour Court that the petitioner had taken the services of other persons after retrenchment of the respondent-workman and thereby committed breach of provision of section 25-H of the Act. Further, it is also required to be noted that the Labour Court has not even granted continuity of service to the respondent-workman. Thus, the view taken by the Labour Court qua reinstatement of the respondent is absolutely just, proper and correct.