BILKHA GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. VANITABEN MADHAVJIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Para 1 xxx xxx xxx

(2.) Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. The petitioner, first party employer in Reference (LCJ) No.131/2001 has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Award dated 16th April, 2009 whereby the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Junagadh has partly allowed the reference and ordered reinstatement of the respondent workman with continuity of service and 25% of back wages with Rs.1000/= cost. The respondent had to raise industrial dispute as she came to be relieved from service on 1st September, 2000 without following due procedure of law. It was the case of respondent before the Court that as she had been in continuous service as sweeper in the petitioner organization since 1995, her unceremonious termination was contrary to the principles of natural justice and also contrary to the provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said reference came to be disposed of in favour of the respondent holding that her termination was illegal as her retrenchment was effected without following due procedure of law. With regard to back wages, the Court considered it appropriate to grant 25% of the entire back wages. While issuing the notice, the Advocate for the petitioner had confined petitioners challenge to the awarding of back wages only as the respondent has already been reinstated. Therefore, this Court on such submission for the Advocate for the petitioner, issued Notice only with a view to ascertain the say of the petitioner, in respect of awarding of back wages. At the time of hearing, Mr. Supehia, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that as a statement has already been made with regard to giving up challenge qua reinstatement, now he will have to argue the matter only for his quantum of back wages. Mr. Supehia submitted that in fact looking to the nature of work and position of the employer, the order requires to be viewed in its proper perspective. However, now it would not be possible for Mr. Supehia to canvass any submission qua the order of reinstatement. Mr. Supehia, therefore, fairly confined his application only with regard to amount of back wages. Mr. Supehia submitted that the Labour Court has recorded that there was a say on behalf of the employer that the respondent workman had been engaged somewhere else and she was earning more than she would have been earning in the petitioner organization, i.e. Gram Panchayat. The Court has not believed it and granted 25% back wages, without there being any basis.

(3.) Para 3 xxx xxx xxx