VALIBEN DAHYABHAI BAGADA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred, with the following prayers :

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Cook in the District Tuberculosis Center, Bharuch, on 07.01.1986. The services of the petitioner were terminated by respondent No.3, District Tuberculosis Officer, Bharuch, without giving any reasons and in violation of the provisions of Section25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on 13.03.1995. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Labour Court, Bharuch, by filing Reference Case No.216/1995. By an order dated 07.09.2001, the Labour Court set aside the termination order passed by respondent No.3 and directed her reinstatement in service along with continuity in service and backwages. The petitioner was reinstated in service after the order of the Labour Court. However, respondent No.3 challenged the order of the Labour Court by filing Special Civil Application No.5898/2002 before this Court. By an order dated 06.02.2006, this Court (Coram: Mr.K.S.Jhaveri, J.) partlyallowed the petition by setting aside the judgment and award of the Labour Court in respect of the backwages, but confirmed the said order regarding the reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity in service. In spite of the order of this Court granting continuity in service, respondent No.3 passed an order dated 29.09.2006, considering the services of the petitioner from 13.03.1995, the date of her termination, instead of from 07.01.1986, her initial date of appointment. This would mean that no continuity in service has been given by respondent No.3, in spite of the orders of the Labour Court and this Court in this regard.

(3.) Mr.Kashyap R. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the manner in which respondent No.3 has calculated the pensionary benefits of the petitioner, by the order dated 29.09.2006, is absolutely incorrect and contrary to the judgment and award of the Labour Court regarding continuity in service, which has been confirmed by this Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner has suffered great monetary loss in her meager amount of pension. The petitioner has retired from service and would face even greater hardship in the evening of her life. Hence, the respondents may be directed to grant the relief prayed for in the petition.