HITESHBHAI THARUBHAI MANJARIA Vs. CONSERVATOR OF FOREST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been filed by the original petitioner challenging the judgment and order, dated 28.2.2017 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 15429 of 2016 filed by the appellant whereby the learned single Judge confirmed the award of the Labour Court by which the appellant-original petitioner was awarded lumpsum compensation of Rs.35,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.

(2.) The appellant had approached the Labour Court, Junagadh against the action of the respondents in terminating his services with effect from 19.09.2003. A Statement of Claim was filed on 11.12.2004 before the Labour Court contending that the appellant was engaged as a Driver under the Junagadh Division of the Forest Department with effect from 15.03.2001. The applicant held the post of Driver and discharged his duties faithfully and diligently. The nature of duties and the time of his service was from morning 10.00 a.m., onwards and on some days he would render services as a Driver for 14 hours in a day. The appellant further stated that he was initially paid Rs.2155/- per month and thereafter he was paid Rs.2400/- per month. Signatures were obtained on the vouchers of payment and the vouchers were in the possession of the employer. He requested that the employer be asked to produce the vouchers for the period from 15.03.2001 to 19.09.2003. It was his case that he had discharged service continuously for a period of 240 days in a calendar year without any break for the period from 15.3.2001 to 19.09.2003; that his services were put to an end without following due procedure as prescribed under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. Hence, the industrial dispute and a claim was so raised before the Labour Court for reinstatement and consequential benefits.

(3.) Several Decisions were cited by the learned Advocate for the appellant before the learned single Judge and before us too. We will advert to the discussion on these judgments in the latter part of the judgment. The learned single Judge held that there is no indispensable rule that in case of a breach of Section 25-F, reinstatement should be the rule. The learned single Judge observed that there is no dispute that the appellant-original petitioner served as a Daily Wager only for two to three years and that he came to be replaced by a regular driver and not a daily wager. Holding that in reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the judicial forum can mould a relief to meet the ends of justice and therefore the award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement was just and proper.