NATHA RAMBHAU WARBHAVAN Vs. SARPANCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was employed as a peon from 10th august, 1945 under the Respondent Gram Panchayat and he was illegally terminated from employment with effect from 3rd November, 1980. According to him, no charge sheet was served on him, nor was there any inquiry against him before he came to be terminated from employment. He further alleges that the Respondent gram Panchayat has not complied with the provisions of Section 25-F of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, the act of the Gram Panchayat to terminate him from employment is illegal and improper and, therefore, he was entitled to be reinstated will full backwages and continuity of service.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the said order of termination he raised an industrial dispute under section 10 read with section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The State Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. Inspite of due notices having been served on the Respondent Gram Panchayat it did not care or bother to appear before the Labour Court to defend itself and, therefore, the Award of the Labour Court is an ex-parte Award. Though there were no pleadings filed by the Gram Panchayat the Labour Court has considered the material adduced by the Gram Panchayat before the Conciliation Officer. It appears that the Gram Panchayat had participated in the conciliation proceedings and put forward its case that the Petitioner had committed an act of theft of Gram panchayat's property and the same was seized from him under Panchanama and, therefore, he was terminated from employment after a unanimous resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. It was also the case of the Gram Panchayat that before he was terminated from employment his explanation was called for but he failed to give any explanation and, therefore his services were terminated. It would have been better for the Gram Panchayat to have appeared before the Labour Court and put forward the said case once again by filing a proper written statement and by adducing cogent evidence before the Labour Court to justify its action of termination on the ground of misconduct of theft of the Panchayat's property committed by the Petitioner. For the reasons best known to the Sarpanch and the Gram Panchayat they die not participate in the proceedings before the Labour Court to justify its action of termination of the Petitioner from employment. The Labour Court has held that the termination of the Petitioner from employment was grossly illegal and was held to be liable to be set aside He, however, refused to grant the normal relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages on the ground of his age which he gave in the year 1984 at the time of oral evidence to be 55 years. There was no documentary evidence to show the correct age of the Petitioner. The Labour Court has however, recorded its assessment that the Petitioner was of 60 years age and, therefore, he could not be granted reinstatement at that age. The labour Court, however, computed an amount of Rs. 1050/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and other reliefs The Labour Court has also considered the falsity of the petitioner's evidence that he was in employment from 1945. The Labour court found that the Gram Panchayat as an entity came into existence in 1952 for the first time and, therefore, he could not have been employed from 1945. The labour Court has disposed of the reference by awarding in amount of Rs. 1050/-as compensation as full and final relief to the Petitioner.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the said award of Labour Court the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Shri Golewar, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, has submitted that after holding the order of termination to be illegal and improper the Labour Court ought to have granted him normal relief of reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service. He has further submitted that a paltry sum of Rs. 1050/- computed on the basis of retrenchment compensation, has been awarded by the Labour Court. He has fairly admitted that the said amount has been paid to his client by the Gram Panchayat. He, therefore, submits that the Petitioner should be awarded full back wages from the date of termination dated 3rd November, 1980 till the age of retirement i. e. 58 years. He is praying for seven years back wages.