EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. RAGHUBHAI UKABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Hukum Singh for the petitioners and Mr. HS Mulia, learned Advocate appearing for respondent workmen in this group of petitions.

(2.) Through this petition, petitioner is challenging the award made by the labour court, Surendranagar in Reference (LCS) No. 82 of 2001 dated 12.1.2007 wherein the allowed reference in part and granted reinstatement in favour of the workmen concerned without back wages for interim period by directing the petitioner establishment to reinstate the workmen concerned on their post within thirty days from the date of publication of award without back wages for interim period.

(3.) Learned AGP Mr. Hukum Singh for petitioners submits that before the labour court, detailed reply was filed by the petitioner wherein none of the averments made in the statement of claim were admitted. Petitioner had disputed working days and working years of the respondent workmen. Continuous service of the workmen concerned was also denied by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, in seniority register, name of the present respondents are not noted and, therefore, they are not considered to be employees of the petitioner. It was also disputed by the petitioner that the concerned workmen have completed 240 days continuous service as alleged and in view of that, it was contended that the question of giving notice or notice pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation to the workmen concerned does not arise and no new workmen were recruited/engaged by petitioner after termination of services of the workmen concerned. He submits that the labour court has committed gross error in not appreciating these contentions raised by petitioner in its written statement. He submits that labour court has committed gross error in granting relief in favour of the workmen. He submits that when Section 25F of the ID Act, 1947 was not violated by petitioner, question of non compliance of the mandatory provisions contained therein was not arising and, therefore, labour court ought not to have granted such relief of reinstatement. He also submits that none of the workman was completing 240 days continuous service as alleged and no concrete evidence was produced by the workmen before the labour court. As per his submission, oral evidence of the witness for the petitioner namely Rameshbhai K. Delwadia Exh. 24 was also not properly appreciated by the labour court and therefore award in question is required to be set aside by dismissing the reference of the workmen concerned. Except these submissions, no other submission was made by learned AGP Mr. Singh before this Court and no decision whatsoever was cited by Mr. Singh, learned AGP for petitioners before this Court in support of his submissions as aforesaid.