PARSHOTTAM P.PIPALIYA Vs. VIJAY ENGINEEERING WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. PH Pathak, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner workman and Mr. PS Gogia, learned advocate appearing for the respondent.

(2.) THE present petition is filed challenging the award dated 22.03.2005 passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No. 110 of 1992 whereby the labour court partly allowing the reference directed lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs. 45,000/- to be paid to the petitioner in lieu of the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement and backwages.

(3.) MR . Pathak, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court ought to have held that when there is a violation of Section 25(F), (G) & (H) of the I.D. Act, 1947, the only logical and consequential order could be the order of reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages. He submitted that the Labour Court failed to appreciate that the work of similar nature is available with the respondents and that the juniors to the petitioner are continued in service.