LAWS(GJH)-2007-9-152

STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. ABDULBHAI MOHMEDBHAI SHAIKH

Decided On September 11, 2007
STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant
V/S
ABDULBHAI MOHMEDBHAI SHAIKH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State, being aggrieved by the Award dtd.29/10/1999 passed by the Labour Court, Kalol in Reference (LCK) No.452 of 1990, directing reinstatement of the workman without back wages but with the benefit of continuity of service, is before this Court in Special Civil Application No.12689 of 1990 with a submission that the court below was unjustified in directing reinstatement of the workman. The workman is also before this Court in Special Civil Application No.9561 of 2001 with a submission that the court below was unjustified in not awarding the back wages.

(2.) Ms.Manisha Lavkumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State submitted that the court below was unjustified in holding that the Irrigation Department would be an industry for the purposes of Industrial Disputes Act and further erred in holding that the workman had acquired status of a workman as he had worked for 11 years. The submission is that unless the workman had proved that he had worked for 240 or more days in 12 calender months preceding the date of termination, such workman would not be entitled to any relief.

(3.) Mr.Pathak, learned counsel for the workman, however, submitted that in view of admissions made by the other-side that the workman had worked for more than 11 years, that too, without any break or so, this Court should hold that a separate finding is not required. It is also contended by Mr.Pathak, learned counsel for the workman that the court below was obliged to award back wages in view of its findings that the workman was unceremoniously removed from service. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State, however, submitted that as the workman is not entitled to reinstatement, the question of back wages does not arise and in case the order of reinstatement is held to be proper, then too, the workman would not be entitled to any back wages, because, the court below, for the reasons stated in the order, has not exercised its discretion in favour of the workman.