CHANDUBHAI @ CHANDULAL KESHAVLAL PATNI Vs. GIDC LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Megha R. Chitalia on behalf of the petitioner.

(2.) In the present petition petitioner - employee has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference No. 1808 of 1995 dated 5.2.1999, granting reinstatement with continuity of service, without back wages of interim period. It is necessary to note that Labour Court has granted only reinstatement with continuity of service. There is no direction of denial of back wages. The learned advocate Ms. Megha R. Chitalia submitted that VRS was floated by the respondent but it was kept in abeyance and not implemented. In pursuance to that scheme, the employee concerned applied for resignation with a prayer to grant the benefit of VRS. The respondent - management has accepted the resignation only and there is no question of granting any benefit of VRS as scheme has not been implemented by the respondent. Ultimately in result of accepting the resignation, the service of the workman is terminated. Therefore, he raised industrial dispute before the Labour Court which is referred for adjudication on 17.7.1995. Before the Labour Court the whole question was examined on the light that whether the workman is entitled to the reinstatement or not. Ultimately the Labour Court has come to conclusion that management has not informed to the employee that VRS is not implemented.

(3.) The defence of employee is that in case if management has informed the workman then he may have withdrawn the resignation. This aspect has been examined on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. Ultimately the Labour Court has come to conclusion that respondent management has cheated the petitioner employee and therefore they should have to cancel the resignation and have to reinstate the workman with continuity of service. Before the Labour Court no discussion about the unemployment of the employee during the interim period. Whether the workman has deposed before the Labour Court that he remained unemployed during the interim period or not, there is no discussion in the award. Whether workman has not pressed for the relief of back wages or not, it is also not reflected from the award. In light of this material on record and discussion made by the Labour Court, Labour Court has ultimately granted reinstatement with continuity of service. This award is dated 5.2.1999. The delay in filing the present petition is explained in paragraph 14, which is quoted as under: