EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. HARISINGH MODHBHAI GADHVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Sandhya Natani for the petitioner and Mr. H.S. Mulia, learned Advocate appearing for respondent workman in this petition.

(2.) Through this petition, petitioner is challenging the award made by the Labour Court, Surendranagar, in Reference (L.C.S.) No.77 of 2001 dated 05.1.2007 whereby Labour Court has allowed the reference in part and granted reinstatement in favour of the workman concerned without back wages for interim period by directing the petitioner establishment to reinstate the workman concerned on his post within thirty days from the date of publication of award without back wages for interim period.

(3.) Learned AGP Ms. Sandhya Natani for petitioner 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. The petitioner had disputed working days and working years of the respondent workman. Continuous service of the workman concerned was also denied by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, in seniority register, name of the present respondent is not noted and, therefore, he is not considered to be employee of the petitioner. It was also disputed by the petitioner that the concerned workman has 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 workman concerned does not arise and no new workmen were recruited/engaged by petitioner after termination of services of the workman concerned. She submits that the Labour Court has committed gross error in not appreciating these contentions raised by petitioner in its written statement. She submits that Labour Court has committed gross error in granting relief in favour of the workman. She 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. She also submits that none of the workman was completing 240 days continuous service as alleged and no concrete evidence was produced by the workman before the Labour Court. As per his submission, oral evidence of the witness for the petitioner namely Rameshbhai K. Delwadia Exh. 18 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 workman concerned. Except these submissions, no other submission was made by learned AGP Ms. Natani before this Court and no decision whatsoever was cited by Ms. Natani, learned AGP for petitioners before this Court in support of her submissions as aforesaid.