SURAT PARSI PANCHAYAT Vs. BEROZ NADARSHAH DARUWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Surat Parsi Panchayat [hereinafter referred to as, Sthe Panchayat ] has preferred the present petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution against the judgment and award dated 30th March, 1999 passed by the Labour Court, Surat in Reference [LCS] No. 333 of 1989.

(2.) It appears that the respondent-workman was engaged by the Panchayat as a Clerk-cum-Typist since the year 1975. On 29th December, 1988, she was retrenched from service. At the time of retrenchment, she was paid one month's pay in lieu of notice and the retrenchment compensation, as envisaged by Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as, Sthe Act ]. The workman, however, did not accept the said amount nor did she encash the cheque for the sum of Rs.10,367=70p. given to her. She raised industrial dispute in respect of termination of her service which came to be referred to the Labour Court, Surat and registered as above. Before the Labour Court, the workman filed her statement of claim. According to her during the period from 10th December, 1988 to 20th December, 1988 she was ill and she could not attend the duty. After recovery, she reported for duty on 22nd December, 1988 and produced fitness certificate dated 21st December, 1988 given by Dr. Dakoria. Her service was, however, terminated with mala fide intention on account of disagreement between the two trustees of the Panchayat. The claim was contested by the Panchayat. Panchayat denied the allegations made by the workman. It was asserted that the service of the workman was terminated after following due procedure i.e. after giving one month's pay in lieu of notice and the retrenchment compensation.

(3.) By the impugned judgment and award, the learned Labour Judge decided the Reference in favour of the workman and ordered reinstatement to workman in service with continuity of service and forty per cent of the backwages. According to the learned Labour Judge, service of the workman was terminated in contravention of Section 25-G of the Act, without conducting disciplinary action against the workman and without assigning reason for retrenchment. As to the backwages, the learned Judge was of the opinion that in absence of any evidence by any party, the award for payment of forty per cent of backwages would be just and proper.