PORT OFFICER Vs. HIMMATBHAI MAVAJIBHAI CHUDASAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Articles 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) No.210 of 1990, whereby the Reference filed by the petitioner was partly allowed and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent- workman with continuity of service and 20% back-wages. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the aforesaid award was passed in nine Reference Cases being Reference (LCB)Nos.203/1990 to 204/1990, 207/1990 to 209/1990 and 211/1990, similar common award was passed in all other References by the learned Presiding Officer in all Reference Cases mentioned herein-above.

(2.) A group of petitions was filed before this Court being Special Civil Application Nos.2116, 2121 and 2123 of 2009 and this Court vide judgment and order dtd. 23/6/2016 partly allowed these petitions and confirmed the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer with regard to the reinstatement of the workmen and quashed the order with regard to the continuity of service as well as granting of 20% back-wages.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the matter was taken up before the Division Bench of this Court by way of Letters Patent Appeal No.2322 of 2017 and allied matters. It transpires from the order that cross appeals were preferred by the employees challenging the order of denying the back-wages as well as continuity of service and management also preferred an appeal challenging order of reinstatement. That after hearing of respective parties in appeal, Division Bench of this Court disposed of the appeals on 31/1/2018 and award passed by the learned Labour Court in Reference (LCB) Nos.203/1990 to 204/1990, 207/1990 to 209/1990 and 211/1990 was modified to the extent of awarding Rs.3.00 Lakh to each workmen by way of lumpsum compensation in lieu of the reinstatement, back-wages, continuity of service, etc. Present petition which is also part of one of the Reference was left out as during the pendency of petition, the respondent workman expired and on the day when the learned Court passed an order on 23/6/2016, the notice to the heirs was remained unserved, due to that reason, this petition was singled out from the aforesaid petitions.