BOTAD NAGAR PALIKA Vs. K.P. NATHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 13.4.2006 passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) No. 253 of 1994 whereby the Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman in service with 50% back wages. The facts of the present petition are that the respondent workman was working as Rojamdar and he was paid wage of Rs. 32.20 paise per day. He was given appointment for 29 days. After completion of 29 days, the petitioner Nagar Palika used to extend the appointment order for further period of 29 days after passing appropriate resolutions. On 9.1.1993 the services of the workman came to be terminated. The respondent workman raised industrial dispute in the year 1994 by filing statement of claim before the Labour Court, Bhavnagar. He claimed reinstatement with full back wages. The petitioner denied the claim of the workman by filing written statement. It is stated in the written statement that the workman was appointed on ad hoc basis for 29 days and if work was available, the said period was extended from time to time. Therefore, there was no question of issuing notice pay before retrenchment of the workman. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence available on record, passed the award as aforesaid which is under challenge in this petition.

(2.) Heard learned advocate Mr. D.M. Thakkar for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. T.R. Mishra for the respondent workman. Learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently contended that on the basis of the evidence produced by the petitioner, the Labour Court failed to consider that the workman was a daily rated employee appointed for a fix period of 29 days and his service came to an end on the expiry of the said period of employment. Therefore, in the present case, when the services of the workman came to an end by virtue of contract, provision of Section 25F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act shall not be attracted to the facts of the present case. In support of this contention, he has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Reserve Bank of India v. Gopinath Sharma, 2006 6 SCC 221, more particularly, paragraph Nos. 17, 22 and 27 which are reproduced hereinafter:

(3.) He has further relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Purshottambhai R. Kachhadia v. State of Gujarat and Others, 2000 2 GLR 1793 in which it is held at paragraph No. 9 as under: