MEHSANA DISTRICT PANCHAYAT Vs. MAHESHKUMAR CHANDULAL ACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the award dated 19th August, 2000 passed by the learned Labour Court, Kalol (N.G.) in Reference (LCK) No.279 of 1987, the petitioner is before this Court with a submission that the learned Court below could not direct reinstatement of the workman, nor could direct payment of back-wages, nor could give him the benefit of continuity of service.

(2.) Shri H.S. Munshaw, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as each and every appointment order was looking to the exigency of the work and was limited to 29 days only, every order would come to an end and therefore, each appointment cannot be counted with each other. He, however, admitted that the finding of the learned Court below that the workman had worked for 240 days in twelve calendar months preceding the date of removal, is not a perverse finding.

(3.) Even if I assume that every order of appointment was for 29 days only and after an artificial break of a day or two or ten days, fresh order of appointment was issued, then, each appointment is to be counted as one and the working days if are more than 240 in total, then, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would certainly apply. The learned Court below was not unjustified in directing reinstatement of the workman in view of the violation of Section 25-F of the Act.