UNA NAGARPALIKA Vs. CHHAGANBHAI PUNJABHAI PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS common questions of law and facts arise in this group of petitions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) BY way of these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has inter alia prayed to quash and set aside the judgments and awards dated 02nd May, 2009, 01st May, 2009 and 02nd May, 2009 passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh in Reference (LCJ) Nos.36, 34 and 35 of 2000 respectively, whereby the Labour Court partly allowed the Reference and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman with continuity of service 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 respective 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 with continuity of service without any back wages to the respondent-workmen. It is pertinent to note that the Labour Court has also rightly observed that though the respondent-workmen had completed 240 days of service as per the provisions of the Act, they were neither issued any retrenchment notice nor were they paid any retrenchment compensation nor were they paid any amount in lieu of notice period and therefore, the petitioner committed breach of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Further, the Labour Court has rightly observed that the petitioner had also taken services of other persons after retrenchment of the respondent-workmen and, thereby committed breach of provision of section 25-H of the Act.