STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PANAKUMARI SURENDRASINH CHUDASAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State as appellant has filed this intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, challenging the judgment dtd. 31/1/2017 in Special Civil Application No.6059 of 2015, wherein learned Single Judge modified the award of Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference T No.208 of 1995 by holding that the workman would not be entitled for reinstatement w.e.f. 31/3/1991 with 20% back wages and continuity of service but the workman would be entitled to reinstatement with effect from the date of employment of other employees through contractor. The consequential benefits shall also be made available to the workman accordingly.

(2.) The brief facts on record are to the effect that the respondent - workman was appointed temporarily on 10/8/1988, for a period of three months as a daily wager. Upon completion of three months, she was re-engaged by fresh order dtd. 15/11/1988 for a period of another one month. Once again, an order dtd. 4/1/1988, was passed engaging her for a period of 30 days. Thereafter, she was not employed and against her non engagement/ re-employment, she raised a dispute before the Labour Court, Bhavnagar registered as Reference T. No.208 of 1995. The Labour Court, Bhavnagar, upon adjudication directed the appellant - State to reinstate the respondent - workman to her original post with 20% back wages with continuity of service w.e.f. 31/3/1991. Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court dtd. 30/8/2014, the appellant- State preferred Special Civil Application No.6059 of 2015, wherein learned Single Judge while modifying the award dtd. 30/8/2014, held that the respondent - workman would not be entitled to reinstatement with effect from 31/3/1991 with 20% back wages and continuity of service but the workman would be entitled to reinstatement with effect from the date of employment of other employees through contractor. All the consequential benefits with continuity of service and back wages shall be made available accordingly. Aggrieved by aforesaid directions, present appeal is filed.

(3.) Heard Ms. Shruti Dhruve, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant - State and Mr. Vishal Thakkar, learned advocate for respondent (workman).