EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. SHANTUBEN CHHAGANBHAI MAKWANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Hukum Singh, for the petitioners and Mr. H. S. Mulia, learned Advocate appearing for respondent workman in this petition.

(2.) THROUGH this petition, petitioners are challenging the award made by the Labour Court, Surendranagar, in Reference (L. C. S.) No. 128 of 2000 dated 13. 02. 2007 whereby Labour has allowed the reference in part and granted reinstatement in favour of the workman concerned without back wages for interim period by directing the petitioners establishment to reinstate the workman concerned on her post within thirty days from the date of publication of award without back wages for interim period.

(3.) LEARNED AGP Mr. Hukum Singh for the petitioners submits that before the Labour Court, detailed reply was filed by the petitioners wherein none of the averments made in the statement of claim was admitted. The petitioners had disputed working days and working years of the respondent workman. Continuous service of the workman concerned was also denied by the petitioners. According to the petitioners, in seniority register, name of the present respondent is not noted and, therefore, she is not considered to be employee of the petitioners. It was also disputed by the petitioners 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 petitioners after termination of services of the workman concerned. He submits that the Labour Court has committed gross error in not appreciating these contentions raised by petitioners in its written statement. He submits that Labour Court has committed gross error in granting relief in favour of the workman. He submits that when section 25f of the ID Act, 1947 was not violated by petitioners, 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 workman before the Labour Court. As per his submission, oral evidence of the witness for the petitioners namely Rameshbhai K. Delwadia Exh. 17 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 Mr. Hukum Singh before this Court and no decision whatsoever was cited by Mr. Hukum Singh, learned AGP for petitioners before this Court in support of his submissions as aforesaid.