JETPUR NAGARPALIKA Vs. NANDUBEN ARJANBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present Special Civil Application, the petitioner Nagarpalika has impugned the judgment and award dtd. 15/5/2008 passed by the learned Labour Court, Rajkot whereby the Reference (LCR) Nos.405 of 1991 and 438 of 1991 stand partly allowed.

(2.) Mr. Bhavesh P. Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that both the respondent workmen were engaged on daily wages of Rs.24.40 ps. as garden labourer with the petitioner Nagarpalika. That their services came to be terminated on 31/1/1991. Aggrieved by the removal, the respondent workmen raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Rajkot who by order dtd. 6/5/1991 made a reference to the learned Labour Court. He submits that the reference was made under Ss. 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ["ID Act' for short] and in the reference, prayer was made for reinstatement with back wages. He further submits that while rejecting the prayers of the respondent workmen, the learned Labour Court has held that there is a breach of Sec. 25H of the ID Act and in lieu of the reinstatement, since the respondent workmen attained the age of superannuation, the learned Labour Court has awarded compensation of Rs.40,000.00 each to both the workmen from the date of their retrenchment till the date of their superannuation. He submits that the respondent workmen could not prove their case for breach of Ss. 25F and 25G of the ID Act. He submits that the learned Labour Court has erroneously appreciated the evidence to come to the conclusion that there is breach of Sec. 25H of the ID Act, inasmuch as, the petitioner Nagarpalika has employed other persons in place of the retrenched workmen. He submits that the breach of Sec. 25H of the ID Act has been held dehors the proper evidence brought on record. He submits that the learned Labour Court has relied upon the statement of the witness of the Nagarpalika in cross-examination whereby it has been stated by the said witness that if new workers are engaged, they are also being paid at the same rate. He, therefore, submits that the present Special Civil Application be allowed.

(3.) Per contra, Ms. Kruti M. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the respondent workmen submits that the respondents were working as garden labourers in the Garden Department of the Nagarpalika and they were executing their duties sincerely and without any notice or notice pay, their services came to be terminated. She submits that the respondents were working with the Nagarpalika since long and therefore, in breach of the provisions of the ID Act, the learned Labour Court has rightly granted lump sum compensation from the date of retrenchment till the date of superannuation. She submits that even looking at the amount awarded to the respondent workmen, no interference is called for as the same is just and proper and after taking into account the daily wages which were being paid to the said respondents. She submits that the impugned order be upheld and the present Special Civil Application be dismissed.