MOHANBHAI RAMJIBHAI KERATRA Vs. SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE factual matrix for disposal of the present appeal is that the appellant, Mohan Ramjibhai, was appointed on 21st May, 1983, and was stopped from work with effect from 21st June, 1986; he made a reference to the Labour Court that his removal was violative of section-25 (G) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court decided against the interest of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner came to this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6436 of 1996, which was dismissed on 30th July, 1997. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appellant preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 1419 of 1997. The Division Bench of this Court, in its judgement, observed that there were no violations of the provisions of Section-25 (F) of the act, however, the Division Bench found that the question of Section-25 (G) and its applicability required reconsideration. The matter was remitted to the Labour Court for a fresh decision. The Labour Court, thereafter, made its award on 16th October, 1998 in Reference (LCS)No. 50 of 1998 holding that there was violation of Section--25 (G) of the act, it accordingly ordered reinstatement of the appellant with 60% back-wages. Being aggrieved by the said award, the Establishment, namely, surendranagar District Panchayat, filed Special Civil Application No. 2458 of 1999. The same came to be allowed by the learned single judge on 18th August, 1999, therefore, the aggrieved labour/workman is before this Court under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the learned single Judge committed factual, so also legal, error in not appreciating the provisions of Section--25 (G) of the Act. Her submission is that in application of Section--25 (G), the last man should go first and the first man should go last. Her submission is that the date of appointment is the material date and not the date of discharge. Her submission, in fact, is that two persons, namely, Kalubhai Kanjibhai and Bijal Bababhai, admittedly, were engaged on 21st March, 1984, therefore, they would certainly be the juniors to the petitioner, who was engaged with effect from 21st May, 1983.