WANKANER TALUKA PANCHAYAT Vs. GANESHBHAI KHIMJIBHAI PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Wankaner Taluka Panchayat has challenged the impugned judgment and award dated 12.09.2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No.226 of 1989 by which the learned Judge has partly allowed the said Reference and has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent without back wages, but with continuity in service.

(2.) THE respondent herein was serving as a Rector since 01.01.1984 for the boys hostel run by the petitioner and his salary was Rs.500/ - per month. That he was dismissed / retrenched from the service on 02.07.1987 by written order without giving any notice, notice pay and/or retrenchment compensation. That the respondent raised industrial dispute challenging his termination / retrenchment which was referred to the Labour Court, Rajkot and numbered as Reference (LCR) No.226 of 1989. The respondent alleged that there is breach of section 25(F) and 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondent has filed written statement at Exh.11. Both the parties led their evidence oral as well as documentary. It was the case on behalf of the petitioner that as per provisions of Grant -in -Aid, the qualification for the post of Rector was S.S.C passed and as the petitioner did not pass the S.S.C examination, he was not qualified to be continued as Rector and he was relieved from service. That on appreciating evidence and, therefore, considering the condition of the appointment order Ex.55 in which there was no such condition regarding passing of S.S.C examination by the respondent, the Labour Court, while passing the impugned judgment and award, has held that the retrenchment of the respondent is illegal. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is Taluka Panchayat, which is a statutory body and runs on grant of the Government, denied the back wages to the respondent and passed the order of reinstatement with continuity of service only.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court of reinstatement to the respondent with continuity of service, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.