- (1.) HEARD learned advocate Mr. Kamal Sojitra on behalf of Vadia Gram Panchayat in all five matters. The industrial disputes raised by workmen against their termination wherein Labour Court has granted reinstatement to one workman Gabhrubhai Matrabhai Khuman with 20% back wages. In case of Batukbhai Popatbhai Dholaria, reinstatement granted without back wages of interim period. In case of Ujiben Rajabhai Makwana, reinstatement granted with full back wages of interim period. In case of Pratapbhai Dabbhai Kotila, reinstatement gratned with 20% back wages of interim period and in case of Lakhubhai Nagbhai Kahor where 50% back wages with effect from 1st February, 2002 till date of retirement of workman has been granted.
(2.) IN all awards which are passed by Labour Court, Amreli and challenged by petitioner before this Court, learned advocate Mr. Sojitra raised contention before this Court that Labour Court has committed gross error in awarding reinstatement as well as back wages in favour of concerned respondent - workman. The relevant record has not been properly appreciated by Labour Court, Amreli produced by petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Sojitra also raised contention that respondents workmen were not regular or permanent employee, therefore procedure is not required to be followed by petitioner. Respondent was called for work on temporary basis as per work required by the Panchayat. Therefore, question of giving permanent job does not arise. Respondent workman was appointed illegally dehorse the Service Rules and without prior approval of the Director of Municipality. He relied upon one decision of Apex Court reported in , AIR 1984 SC 161. He submitted that workman has not completed 240 days continuous service as per details given by petitioner. In short, his submission is that Labour Court has not properly considered matter and awarded reinstatement as well as in some cases back wages have been granted in favour of respondents - workmen. I have considered common contentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Sojitra against common award and I have also perused each award passed by Labour Court, Amreli. In case of Lakhubhai Nagbhai Kahor, before Labour Court, workman has proved continuous service of 240 days before date of termination. Witness of petitioner who was examined before Labour Court vide Exh. 42 has admitted that at the time when service of workman was terminated on 1st February, 2002, Section 25 -F has not been followed by petitioner. Therefore, on basis of aforesaid evidence and considering the fact that the evidence of workman Exh.17 whereby workman was examined and Exh.42 whereby witness of petitioner was examined, certain documents have been produced on record as referred to in para 5. Thereafter, those documents have been examined by Labour Court. Considering documents which are on record, workman was appointed as a daily wager on 1st November, 1979 and terminated on 31st July, 1984. Thereafter, again, he was reinstated on 10th September, 1990 and subsequently he was terminated by petitioner without following Section 25 -F of I.D. Act, 1947. The documents and oral evidence of workman have not been disproved by producing rebuttal evidence on record by petitioner therefore, contention raised in written statement has not been proved by petitioner before the Labour Court and on that basis, considering the fact that workman has already retired from service, therefore 50% back wages were granted w.e.f. 1st February, 2002 with cost of Rs. 1,500/ -. The workman was remained unemployed during interim period as per his evidence Exh.17 and fact that workman was in gainful employment has not been proved by petitioner before Labour Court. The Labour Court has considered written statement submitted by petitioner and also considered oral submissions made by both learned advocates and Labour Court has also considered service book which was produced by workman. Therefore, contention raised by learned advocate Mr. Sojitra cannot be accepted.;