TALUKA DEVELOPMENT OFFICER Vs. ARVINDBHAI SANABHAI SUTHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Advocate, Mr.H.S.Munshaw, appearing on behalf of petitioner.

(2.) In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the award passed by Labour Court, Baroda in Reference No.107 of 1991 (old) and New No.13 of 2000 dated 1.3.2006, whereby, the Labour Court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service and with 25% back wages w.e.f. 22.6.1995.

(3.) Learned Advocate, Mr.Munshaw, submitted that workman was appointed in special project assigned by Central Government through State Government in the National Rural Employment Programme and Javahar Rojgar Yojna. The workman was employed and provided work but, after some time, as funds are not available and scheme is over, therefore, along with other workmen, service of workman was terminated by petitioner on 9.8.1990. Said termination was challenged by workman before the Labour Court, Baroda. He submitted that petitioner has filed written statement and pointed out to the Labour Court that work is not available with the petitioner and after completion of the work, his service was terminated. He read over before this Court Page-13 and 14 of the award. He also submitted that workman has not produced any evidence before the Labour Court about completion of 240 days continuous service. He also submitted that it cannot be presumed that workman remained without work or unemployed after his termination. Therefore, according to him, Labour Court has committed gross error in passing such award which requires interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.