UJJAIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. KAILASH GHAVRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 04.05.2011 passed by the Labour Court, Ujjain in case No.55/2009 ID Reference, whereby the Labour Court has directed reinstatement of respondent, without back wages.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the respondent/workman worked as a daily wager under the petitioner from 01.02.1996. His services were dispensed with on 12.05.2000. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached to the Deputy Labour Commissioner of the State Government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act) for conciliation. On failure of conciliation proceedings, the Deputy Labour Commissioner referred the dispute under Section 10 of the Act to the Labour Court, Ujjain. The Labour Court, Ujjain after giving opportunity to the parties to complete the pleading and to lead evidence, passed the impugned award dated 04.05.2011 whereby the respondent/workman has been ordered to be reinstated, without back wages. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner/employer has filed this petition.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner/employer that on the basis of bald statement of the respondent, that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination, the Labour Court has committed error in recording the finding that he had worked for 240 days in the year. He argued that in the absence of any cogent evidence in support, the Labour Court could not have recorded such finding. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Limited v. State of Rajasthan & another, 2004 8 SCC 161 and in the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore v. S. Mani and others, 2005 AIR(SCW) 1729 in support of his contention. He also contended that the Labour Court, instead of ordering for reinstatement, should have ordered for payment of compensation to the respondent, keeping in view the fact that he was merely a daily wager. To support this contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another, 2009 15 SCC 327.