STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SAMATBHAI DAYABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed challenging the award of the Labour Court, Jamnagar dtd. 16/4/2022, in Reference (LCJ) No.52 of 2017, wherein the reference filed by respondent was allowed, by awarding lumpsum compensation of Rs.85,000.00 in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.

(2.) The brief facts are that, the respondent No.1 was working with Social Forestry, Ghogha Range, Bhavnagar from 1991 till 31/7/1995. He was working as Chokidar and drawing his wages. Thereafter, he started working with Range Forest, Forestry Department, Jamnagar from 21/12/1995 till 31/1/2010 as Chokidar drawing wages accordingly. It was case of the respondent before the Labour Court, Jamnagar that his service was orally terminated on 1/2/2010, for which he preferred afore stated reference in the year 2017. The Labour Court after considering the submissions and evidence on record awarded compensation of Rs.85,000.00 in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, present petition is filed.

(3.) Heard Ms. Nirali Sarda, learned Asst. Government Pleader for the petitioner. She submitted that the issue of violation of breach of conditions of Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act ("the Act" for short) has been decided in favour of the petitioner, by observing that there is no violation of conditions of Sec. 25F of the Act and, therefore, the respondent is not entitled for any benefit of reinstatement with back wages. It is observed by the Labour Court that though the onus lies on the workman, he failed to produce evidence in support of his claim of reinstatement with back wages. No justification has been provided for belated filling of the reference after a period of 7 years. Therefore, as the respondent was not eligible for any reinstatement with back wages, the lump sum compensation awarded in lieu of reinstatement with back wages of Rs.85,000.00 is beyond the provisions of law and therefore, the order is erroneous. Further, when the Labour Court had held that the termination is not illegal, the question of compensation would not arise. She, therefore, submitted that this petition deserves consideration.