DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER Vs. SHANTABEN VINODBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-District Panchayat, being aggrieved by the award dated 15th March, 2000 made by the learned Labour Court, Kalol (North Gujarat) in Reference No.(LCK) No.10 of 1989, is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a submission that the learned Court below was unjustified in answering the reference in favour of the workman with a direction for reinstatement, grant of consequential benefits and 25% back-wages.

(2.) To make the records straight, it is necessary to record that during pendency of this Writ Application, the respondent has expired and his legal representative has been brought on record. Under the circumstances, the legal representative would be entitled to the benefit of back-wages, as ordered by the learned Labour Court, and would not be entitled to the benefit of reinstatement from the date of death of the employee, in case the writ petition is dismissed.

(3.) Shri H.S. Munshaw, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the deceased respondent-workman was employed for some days and thereafter, his appointment came to be terminated and he was re-appointed in the scarcity work, that after the scarcity work was over, the respondent-workman came to be terminated. According to him, in case of the scarcity work, if any person is appointed, then, such person cannot be taken to be appointed in an "industry" because the scarcity work is the sovereign function of the State and the State, while conducting such work, would not become an "industry".