BHAVNAGAR ZILLA SAHAKARI SANGHLTD Vs. DHIREN P PAREKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Joshi for petitioner and Ms. Pahwa for respondent workman. Through this petition, petitioner Bhavnagar Jilla Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Has challenged the award passed by the labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) No. 495 of 1989 dated 1st February, 2006 wherein the labour court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 40 per cent of the back wages for intervening period with all other consequential benefits.

(2.) Learned Advocate Mr. Joshi appearing for the petitioner submitted that the appointment of the workman was by illegal method/irregular procedure. Respondent was not appointed under the provisions of bye laws and rules under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 and, therefore, respondent is not entitled for any benefit of section 25F of the ID Act, 1947. He also submitted that the respondent was appointed as part time employee for specified period and his services were terminated on expiry of the term for which he was appointed as part time employee and, therefore, labour court ought not to have passed the award in question. He submitted that this contention was raised by petitioner in its written statement filed before the labour court vide Exh.5. He also submitted that no work was available after one year and, therefore, services of the workman were terminated after one year. By drawing attention of this court to Exh. 7/5 referred to in para 10 of the impugned award, it was submitted that the said resolution does not bear signature of any authorized person of the petitioner establishment and, therefore, labour court has erred in relying upon Exh.7/5. It was also his submission that the labour court has erred in granting 40 per cent back wages for intervening period. Except these submissions, no other submission was made by Mr. Joshi. No decision was cited by him before this Court in support of his submissions.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Advocate Ms.Pahwa appearing for the workman submitted that the respondent was appointed by petitioner by specific resolution with effect from 8.8.1988, was working with the petitioner from 11.00 a.m. To 6.00 p.m. And has completed 240 days continuous service and service of respondent was terminated on 20.7.1989 without following the mandatory provisions of section 25F of the ID Act, 1947. She also submitted that the part time employees are also covered by the definition of section 2(s) of the ID Act wherein the term 'workman' has been defined. She also submitted that the illegal or irregular appointment has nothing to do with the compliance of mandatory provisions of section 25F of the ID Act, 1947. It was her submission that there is no provision made in the ID Act, 1947 which would give such distinction for terminating services of workman. Therefore, she submitted that the labour court has rightly appreciated oral and documentary evidence on record and has rightly set aside the order of termination and granted 40 per cent back wages for intervening period. She also submitted that the labour court has not committed any error which would require interference of this court.