GUJARAT BOROSIL LIMITED Vs. DINESHBHAI DAYABHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate and Mr. Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner company and Mr. Pathak, learned advocate for the respondent.

(2.) In this petition, when the petitioner company has challenged award dated 17.5.2006 passed by the learned Labour Court in reference No.261 of 1992 whereby the learned Labour Court has directed the company to reinstate the claimant on his original post and to pay 50% of the wages for the period from 21.3.1995 to 11.8.2000.

(3.) So far as the factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record and from rival submissions that the respondent herein, i.e. original claimant raised industrial dispute with allegation that the company terminated his service without following procedure prescribed by law and without any fault on his part. Appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the learned Labour Court at Bharuch. The dispute was registered as Reference (LCB) No.261 of 1992. In his statement of claim, the claimant alleged that he was working with the opponent company as Fitter since 6.4.1994 and that due to his ill health, he could not report for duty for the period from 14.2.1995 to 20.1995 (i.e. for almost one month and one week) and when he reported for duty on 21.1995, he was not allowed to resume his duties and he was orally instructed that his service is not required. He also alleged that on 30.1995 he addressed a letter to the company and asked the company to reinstate him, however, the company did not accept his request. Therefore, he raised dispute before the Labour Commissioner on 6.4.1995. He alleged that his service came to be terminated in violation of principles of natural justice and statutory provisions and that, therefore, he should be reinstated with full back wages.