PRAKASHBHAI SANABHAI BARIA Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.Dipak Dave, learned Advocate for the petitioner -Workman and Mr.Nirzar Desai, learned Advocate for respondent Authorities.

(2.) CHALLENGE in this petition is made to the award of the Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (LCG) (Demand) No.2 of 2005, dated 21.05.2009, whereby the demand of the present petitioner of extending benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, is denied to him.

(3.) MR .Dipak Dave, learned Advocate for the petitionerworkman has stated that the present petitioner was engaged by the Respondent Authority as a Wireman on 24.11.1988. It is stated that, the petitioner continues in service, even today, as daily wager. Attention of the Court is also invited to the fact that, when the present petitioner approached the Labour Court with a demand that he should be given wages and benefits as per the policy of the Government as contained in Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988, there was a move on the part of the respondent Authorities to discontinue the service of the petitioner altogether. Under these circumstances, appropriate application was moved before the Labour Court, wherein protection was granted on 06.07.2007 against his termination. It is submitted that during the pendency of those proceedings, on 27.12.2006, because of non -availability of Labour Court on that day, that interim protection could not be extended and taking advantage of that technicality, the service of the present petitioner was discontinued on 28.12.2006. It is further pointed out that, the petitioner had immediately moved the Labour Court to cure this technicality, which was contested by the respondent Authorities and ultimately, the Labour Court had passed mandatory order on 06.07.2008. The said order was challenged by the present respondents before this Court in Special Civil Application No.2756 of 2008, which was dismissed vide order dated 21.02.2008. It is also pointed out that, the said order of learned Single Judge was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.1136 of 2008, which also came to be rejected vide order dated 17.10.2008. It is further stated that only thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated in service on or about 20.10.2008, and is thus in service. It is stated that, thus there is no dispute with regard to continuance of service of the petitioner, except that the question which may remain in that regard is the wages for the period from the date of discontinuance of service, till the date of reinstatement. It is indicated that the said period i.e. date of discontinuance of service was 28.12.2006 and the date of reinstatement was 20.10.2008. Learned Advocate for the petitioner further states that, the petitioner had moved the Authorities under the Payment of Wages Act in that regard at the relevant time, but he is not aware about the status of the said application. It is stated that, since that aspect is being considered in this petition, the petitioner shall withdraw such application, if any pending.