SANGHVI AND CO Vs. BIPINCHANDRA BHAILAL DOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the petition under Art 227 of the Constitution the petitioner-firm has brought in challenge the award of reinstatement and back wages passed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court Rajkot on 21-7-19869 Annexure A. The respondent-workman had raised an industrial dispute to the effect that he was illegally terminated from service by the petitioner-Company. He therefore claimed reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. It is not in dispute that the respondent-workman was working as a Clerk with the petitioner-Transport Company in Surendranagar at the relevant time. In March 1981 his services were dispensed with. His contention was that the petitioner employer had not followed the provisions of Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore the retrenchment was illegal. The workman raised this dispute and went to the Conciliator. The conciliation proceedings failed and therefore the appropriate Government made a reference of the dispute under Sec. 10(1) of the Act to be appropriate Court. This is how the Labour Court was seized of this reference. After hearing both the sides and looking to whatever evidence was offered by them the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the temination of the respondent-workman amounted to retrenchment and as retrenchment compensation was not paid to the respondent-workman Secs 25F was violated and hence the retrenchment was null and void. Accordingly he was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages However it was found on evidence that Rs. 2400.00 were earned by the workman during the period of his unemployment and that amount was deducted from the full back wages awarded to the respondent workman He vas also granted continuity of service. It is this award which has been brought in challenge in the present petition.

(2.) Mr. Damani learned Counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions in support of the petition:

(3.) We may also in this connection refer to Sec. 12 of the Act which lays down the duties of conciliation officers. Sub-sec. (1) thereof provides that where any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended the conciliation officer may or where the dispute relates to a public utility service and a notice under Sec. 22 has been given shall hold conciliation proceedings in the prescribed manner. It is therefore obvious that even an individual workman raising an industrial dispute as contemplated by Sec. 2A can approach the conciliation officer for resolution of that dispute and if those proceedings fail on the submission of failure report by the concerned conciliation officer the appropriate Government can make a reference under Sec. 10(1) and that is precisely what has been done in the present case. It is not in dispute before us that the respondent-workman raising his dispute under Sec. 2A had approached the concerned conciliation officer who tried to resolve the dispute by bringing both the sides before him and when that resolution failed be gave failure report which resulted in the present reference. Consequently the first contention of Mr. Damani is found to be devoid of any substance and is rejected.