STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VAJSHI MERAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 02nd February, 2009 passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh camp at Porbandar in I.D. Miscellaneous Application No.9 of 2006 in Reference (LCJ) No.167 of 1994, whereby the Labour Court rejected the Miscellaneous Application filed under Section 26(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as well as judgment and award dated 20th May, 2005 passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh in Reference (LCJ) No.167 of 1994, whereby the Labour Court partly allowed the Reference and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman with continuity of service and 50% back wages.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the respondent- workman raised an industrial dispute on the ground that the petitioner terminated his services in complete breach of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The dispute was numbered as Reference (LCJ) No.167 of 1994 and it was decided by way of an ex-parte impugned judgment and award. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred an application under section 26(a) of the Act being Miscellaneous Application No.9 of 2006, which ultimately came to be rejected by the Labour Court. Hence, present petition.

(3.) HAVING considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties and the documentary evidence produced on record as well as the averments made in the petition and the interim order passed by this Court, it transpires that in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court, the respondent-workman has been reinstated in service by the petitioner. Further, it is required to be noted that the Labour Court has after appreciating the pros and cons of the matter rightly arrived at the conclusion. The Labour Court has rightly considered the documentary evidence produced on record and granted reinstatement with continuity of service. It is pertinent to note that the Labour Court has also rightly observed that the petitioner has committed breach of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act since it was categorically proved that the respondent-workman had completed 240 days of service in the year preceding to the date of retrenchment. Thus, I am in complete agreement with the view taken by the Labour Court qua reinstatement and continuity of service.