HARESH BIJALBHAI SONDHARVA Vs. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is made by the workman to the award passed by the Labour Court, Amreli in Reference (LCA) No.4 of 2012 dated 20.11.2013. The Labour Court has held that, the action of the respondent authorities of terminating the service of the petitioner was illegal. It further held that, the petitioner workman was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. However, finally the Labour Court has moulded relief, by awarding lump-sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. It is this last part of the award which is challenged by the workman, contending that the Labour Court, after having held that he was entitled to reinstatement with back wages, should have granted that relief of reinstatement with back wages.

(2.) It is recorded that, the very same award was challenged before this Court by the employer as well, in Special Civil Application No.162 of 2014, however the said petition was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 10.01.2014, without even issuing notice to the workman, who was respondent therein. Thus the argument of the employer, that the termination was legal or that the workman was not entitled to reinstatement is not only not accepted by the Labour Court, but is not accepted by this Court also, as per the judgment in Special Civil Application No.162 of 2014. It is in these circumstances, this petition is considered by this Court.

(3.) Mr.Jainish P. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner workman has submitted that, he was engaged as a Class-IV employee, by the respondent authority on daily wage basis on 09.11.1998. He was asked to work as a Watchman / Peon etc., which he was doing. The petitioner was working as a full timer. Not only that, for years the petitioner was given duty to attend the District Development Officer, who always has been an IAS Officer and who is the highest Authority of the district, where the working hours would be 15 to 18 hours a day. It is recorded that payment of overtime is not the subject matter of this petition. It is submitted that the service of the petitioner was abruptly discontinued on 01.04.2006, without following any process of law. It is submitted that, initially the petitioner had challenged the said termination before this Court by way of a petition being Special Civil Application No.28951 of 2007, which came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 11.03.2008, whereby the petitioner was to make representation to the Authorities and the same was to be considered, keeping in view the observations of this Court inter-alia to the effect that, the Authority shall also keep in view the long service of the petitioner. It is submitted that the said representation was made on 31.03.2008 and the petitioner waited. Since the Authorities did not do anything, the petitioner moved the labour machinery and that is how the dispute was referred by the Appropriate Authority of the Government to the Labour Court, Amreli, with the terms of Reference as to whether the petitioner should be reinstated in service with back wages. It is this Reference on which the impugned award came to be passed. It is contended that the Labour Court has recorded finding to the effect that, the discontinuance of service was illegal. The Labour Court has found that there was violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted that the Labour Court has further found that the Authorities did not consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of service, as per the policy of the Government as a one time measure. It is submitted that the Labour Court has already recorded finding to the effect that the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement and back wages. It is submitted that under these circumstances, this Court may modify the award of the Labour Court to the extent it has denied the reinstatement with back wages.