AYURVEDIC OFFICER Vs. JERAMBHAI KAVABHAI VALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Award dtd.12/10/1994 passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference (LCS) No.30 of 1992 whereby the Labour Court directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent No.1 with continuity of service and to pay cost of Rs.100/-.

(2.) Mr.DD Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly argued that the respondent No.1 was engaged purely on temporary basis for time gape arrangement as part time employee that too as a daily rated employee; that the appointment of the respondent NO.1 was made as per Sec.2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act; the respondent NO.1 was engaged without following required and regular procedure for appointment; the respondent NO.1 has not completed 240 days continuously under the petitioners; that as the regular appointment was made, the service of the respondent NO.1 was terminated. Submitting accordingly, it is prayed to quash the Award passed by the Labour Court. He has also placed reliance on the following decisions; [1] AIR 1996 SC 1565 [2] AIR 1997 SC 3657 [3] (1992) 4 SCC 99 and [4] 2004 (3) GLR 1841 (FB).

(3.) On the other hand, Mr.Shailesh Parikh, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has mainly argued that the respondent No.1 has worked for long period and more than 240 days under the respondents, but his service has been terminated illegally, without issuing any notice or notice pay, without holding inquiry, in violation of the principles of natural justice and without following the mandatory procedure. He has further argued that the award passed by the Labour Court is just legal and proper and while passing the Award, the Labour Court has not committed any error and hence this Court may not interfere with the finding of the Labour Court in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India considering the scope of this Court under the said Article. Consequently, he has prayed not to interfere with the impugned Award and dismiss the petition. He has also placed reliance on the following decisions; [1] AIR 1999 SC 1540 [2] AIR 1999 SC 1542 [3] 2002 SCC (L&S) 1087 [4] 1990 LAB.I.C. 100 [5] 1990 LAB.I.C. 104 [6] 2001 LAB.I.C. 662 [7] 1982 LAB.I.C. NOC 125 (Patna). [8] 2004 SCC (L&S) 36 [9] AIR 2003 SC 3553 and [10] AIR 1981 SC 1253