DISTRICT PANCHAYAT Vs. MALEK SIKANDARKHAN KAMUBHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is directed against the judgement and award passed by the Labour Court in Reference (LCS) No. 151 of 2005, whereby the Labour Court has passed the award for reinstatement without back -wages. The short facts of the case are that as per the respondent workman he had worked from 1976 to 1986 with the petitioner, whereas as per the petitioner, only in the year 1978 the respondent had worked for 31 days and thereafter, in the year 1984, the respondent had worked for 16 days, in the year 1985 he had worked for 22 days and in the year 1986, he had worked for 13 days. In any event, in the year 1986, the engagement of the respondent was not continued. Until 1993, no disputes whatsoever was raised by the respondent and for the first time, in the year 1993 the dispute was raised against the so -called termination by the respondent. The said dispute came to be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication being Reference (LCS) No. 228 of 1993. The Labour Court, since nobody represented the case on behalf of the petitioner, proceeded ex parte and the Labour Court passed the award on 26.8.1997, whereby the reinstatement in service was ordered with 25% back -wages The petitioner carried the matter before this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No. 2484 of 1998 and this Court, vide judgement dated 27.7.2005 set aside the ex parte award and directed the Labour Court to give opportunity to both the sides and to pass a fresh order. It appears that before the Labour Court, additional statement of claim and additional written statement were filed. The evidence was led, including that of cross -examination of the witnesses. The Labour Court thereafter found that as no documents of muster roll or register etc., were produced by the petitioner, in spite of the order below Exh. 24, it was to be accepted that the workman had completed 240 days and as no retrenchment compensation was paid and another employees were also engaged, it was a case for violation of Section 25F and Section 25H of Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'ID Act'). The Labour Court, thereafter found that the back -wages were not required to be awarded and the Labour Court passed the impugned award, whereby the reinstatement is ordered without back -wages It is under these circumstances, the present petition before this Court.

(2.) I have heard Mr. G.H. Bhatt, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rupera, learned Counsel for the respondent.

(3.) IT has been stated that thereafter the workman was not reinstated immediately, but was reinstated in the year 2007, after the order was passed by this Court in Civil Application No. 5933 of 2007.