STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. UDEYSINH VAJESINH BARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mrs. Manisha Lavkumar, learned AGP for the petitioner; Shri U.T.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1; none for the respondent no.2 though served.

(2.) The State Government, being aggrieved by the award dated 9.12.98, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Godhra in Reference [LCG] No. 498/95 is before this Court with a complaint that the learned Labour Court, instead of making award in favour of the workman, should have rejected the Reference.

(3.) From the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court, it would indisputably appear that the present petitioner had engaged the respondent as daily rated workman on payment of wages depending upon the working days and that within 12 calendar months which is preceding the date of termination/retrenchment, the respondent workman had worked for more than 240 days. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner-State that the respondent was orally appointed, therefore, he would not become workman. I am unable to accept the said argument. Once it is proved that a person was employed and he was paid his salary, then, oral appointment or written appointment would lose its importance. It is next contended that the horticulture department would not fall within the definition of à ¢ ¬Sindustry' as provided under Section 2[j] of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Looking to the facts of the present case and the activities of the horticulture department, in the opinion of this Court, horticulture department would come within the mischief of à ¢ ¬Sindustryà ¢ ¬Ãƒ 1/2 as defined under Section 2[j] of the Act.