STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. GOHIL SURENDRASINH PRAVINSINH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Special Civil Application is filed praying for the following reliefs:-

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:- 2.1 It is the case of the respondent No.1-workman that he was engaged as a daily-wage labourer in the year 1985 with the petitioners. After working only for 10 years, as a daily wager, on 25/5/1995, the services of the respondent-workman came to be orally terminated. It is further the case that thereafter the petitioners have engaged new daily-wagers in place of the respondent-workman. Aggrieved, the respondent-workman raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner who by letter dtd. 25/8/2005 made a Reference to the learned Labour Court being Reference (LCB) No.155 of 2005. Accordingly, the respondent-workman submitted his claim. The petitioners herein filed their reply and contested the claim of the respondent-workman. By the impugned judgment and award, the learned Labour Court, Bhavnagar was pleased to partly allow the Reference holding that the respondent-workman was entitled for reinstatement with continuing of services with 10% back-wages. Aggrieved, the petitioners herein are preferred the present Special Civil Application.

(3.) Learned AGP Mr. Yuvraj Brahmbhat appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondent-workman has not worked continuously as a workman for 240 days in a calendar year. He submits that he was appointed as a casual daily wager purely on temporary basis for doing seasonal work as and when available. He submits that the respondent workman has worked only from the year 1990 to 1995 and has not completed 240 days in any given year for the said period. He submits that in view thereof the respondent- workman was not entitled for any reinstatement. He has further submitted that there is no provision to grant appointment to such kind of Rojamdar as the respondent- workman, and therefore, he was not entitled for any benefits and the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act will not be applicable. He has, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment and award be set aside.