JAMNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. RAMESHBHAI DEVJIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate for petitioner Corporation and Mr. Shukla, learned advocate for respondent.

(2.) The petitioner Corporation is aggrieved by vide award dated 16.1.2010 in Reference No.29/94 whereby the learned Labour Court has directed the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the claimant with 20% backwages.

(3.) So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record and from submission by learned advocates for the petitioner Corporation and the respondent Corporation that the claimant raised industrial dispute with the allegations that the Corporation illegally terminated his service. With the said allegations the claimant demanded reinstatement with backwages and other benefits. 3. 1 Appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication to learned Labour Court. The dispute was registered as Reference No. 29/94. 3. 2 In the statement of claim, the claimant alleged that he was employed by the petitioner Corporation as Safai Kamdar and he was working with the Corporation since more than 5 years and despite such facts, the Corporation illegally terminated his service by oral instruction on 20.7.1992. The claimant alleged that at the time when the Corporation terminated his service on oral instruction, Corporation did serve any notice and his service came to be terminated without granting opportunity of hearing and without payment of compensation and without following any procedure prescribed by law. The claimant also alleged that during tenure of his service he worked continuously, regularly and diligently and that during each year, he had worked for more than 240 days, however, the Corporation terminated his service without following principle of Seniority and after his service came to be terminated the Corporation engaged other persons for same work, however, the Corporation did offer work to the petitioner and thereby committed breach of statutory obligation. With such allegations the claimant demanded that the Corporation should be directed to reinstated with consequential benefits. 3. 3 The Corporation opposed the Reference. In its written statement the Corporation contended that the Reference is maintainable because the claimant raised disputed after 2 years and that the claimant was engaged on adhoc and daily wage basis for temporary period and that the claimant was engaged regularly or continuously and during preceding 12 months, the claimant had worked for 240 days. The Corporation also denied the allegations that junior persons were continued in service and that other persons were engaged by the Corporation. The Corporation contended that since the claimant was engaged casually and on adhoc basis the demand of reinstatement and/or backwages may be granted. The Corporation also contended that the claimant was engaged on any permanent vacancy on sanctioned setup. 3. 4 After the parties completed the pleadings, learned Labour Court recorded evidence and upon conclusion of recording of evidence, learned Labour Court heard rival submissions and upon taking into consideration the evidence available on record, learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the Corporation committed breach of Section 25G and Section 25H. Having reached to such conclusion, learned Labour Court passed impugned award with above mentioned direction.