(1.) In the present petition, the petitioner State has challenged the award dated 13.4.2006 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) No.589 of 1993 whereby the learned Labour Court held that the termination of the respondent workman's service was effected in contravention of Section 25F. Having reached such conclusion, the learned Labour Court directed the petitioner State to reinstate the respondent on his original post with continuity of service and 50% backwages.
(2.) Before proceeding further, it is relevant and necessary to mention at the outset that the learned AGP appearing for the petitioner State stated and declared that during pendency of the petition, the petitioner State reinstated the respondent workman w.e.f. 30.7.2007 and since then, the respondent worked in his original department.
(3.) So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record that the respondent workman was serving with the petitioner as driver at salary of Rs.1,175/ - and his service came to be terminated w.e.f. 13.8.1992. Feeling aggrieved by the said action of the petitioner State, the respondent workman raised industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication vide order of reference dated 13.8.1993. The said reference culminated into Reference (LCB) No.589 of 1993. During the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, the respondent workman filed his statement of claim alleging, inter alia, that he was working with the petitioner since last two years and that he was employed as driver at salary of Rs.1,175/ - and he was arbitrarily discharged from service w.e.f. 13.10.1992. He alleged that before terminating his service or at the time of termination, the petitioner had not paid retrenchment compensation and the principles of natural justice were also not followed. He also claimed that he had worked for more than 240 days in preeceding 12 months, however, without following any procedure prescribed by law, the petitioner terminated his service.