SAHDEVBHAI MALJIBHAI DESAI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Ms. Pathak, learned AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of respondents. By consent, Rule is fixed forthwith. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents in treating the petitioner as Daily Rated Full Time employee and reinstating him as Part Time Employee despite clear findings of the Labour Court in Reference (LCK) No. 269 of 1994. The petitioner has to raise industrial dispute as he was terminated. The dispute came to be referred to the Competent Authority and the Reference (LCK) No. 269 of 1994 came to be accepted vide order dated 1st March, 2001. In this Award, the Labour Court has specifically observed that the contention with regard to petitioner being Part time employee could not be accepted for want of sufficient evidence. On the contrary, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been appointed as Full Time Daily Rated Employee and hence ordered accordingly. The petitioner was also awarded back wages and cost of Rs. 250/ -. This order and Award passed by the Labour Court dated 1st March, 2001 in Reference (LCK) No. 269 of 1994 came be assailed by present respondents by preferring Special Civil Application No. 824 of 2002, wherein, this Court (Coram: K. S. Jhaveri, J.) on 30. 1. 2006 modified the same only with regard to full back wages. The Award with regard granting of full back wages came to be quashed and set aside, however, rest of the award was confirmed by this Court. While implementing the said Award, the respondent authorities issued an order on 10th March, 2006, wherein, the petitioner was reinstated as part timer and therefore, he had to make a representation on 6. 2. 2008, wherein, it was categorically mentioned by him that despite there being order of reinstatement on his original post, he was treated as part timer and in fact, he ought to have been reinstated as full timer daily rated employee. There is no response to said representation and therefore, present petition is filed by the petitioner, this Court (Coram: K. M. Thaker, J.) vide order dated 1. 9. 2008 issued notice, which was made returnable on 19. 9. 2008. The respondents have been duly served. No affidavit-in-rely is filed controverting the contentions raised in this petition. The Award of the Labour Court contain categorical findings with regard to petitioner but the respondents failed in establishing that petitioner was engaged as part time workman. The award go to show that Labour Court arrived at a conclusion that petitioner was daily rated full time employee and accordingly held in his final and awarded reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. The said award was challenged before this Court and as submitted above, part of the award qua back wages was set aside and rest of the award was confirmed by this Court. In view of this findings with regard to petitioner being a full time daily rated employee came to be confirmed as the challenge to the award had only partly been allowed and order of back wages has been set aside and rest of Award was confirmed by this Court. The inaction on the part of respondents deserves deprecation as the petitioner has to face the rigor of filing petition again. In view of this, this petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The respondents are hereby directed to treat the petitioner as Daily Rated Full Time employee in terms of the findings of the Labour Court, which Award came be confirmed by this Court as submitted above. With aforesaid observation, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Direct service permitted.