- (1.) In this petition, which is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the award made by the Labour Court, Kalol dated 1st July, 2000 in Reference (LCK) No. 348 of 1995. By the said award the petitioners have been directed to reinstate the respondent on the original post with continuity of service and to pay to her the back wages with effect from 24th December, 1997.
(2.) Relevant facts in nutshell, can be stated as under :- 2.1. Petitioner no. 1 is a cooperative bank registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961.Respondent was appointed in the employment of petitioner no. 1 on daily wage basis by order dated 28th January, 1991. She was appointed for a period of two months. She worked till 30th January, 1991 i.e. for a period of three days. According to the respondent, her service was terminated orally without assigning any reason by the petitioners. 2.2. The respondent, in the year 1995, raised a dispute regarding termination of her service on the ground that it was illegal and she was entitled to be reinstated with full back wages. It appears that the conciliation proceedings failed and, therefore, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Mehsana vide order dated 22nd December, 1995 referred the industrial dispute for adjudication to Labour Court. 2.3. Before the Labour Court she filed statement of claim at Exh. 5 wherein she averred that she was appointed by the petitioners in its district office as Clerk by letter of appointment dated 21st January, 1991. In response to the said letter, she reported for work on 28th January, 1991 at the said office and a report accordingly was despatched to the head office by petitioner no. 2. However, on 30th January, 1991 in the evening she was relieved from the service by oral order without any prior intimation. She was thereafter never re-employed though persons junior to her had been re-employed. According to her, her service was terminated despite order of this Court to maintain status-quo in the proceedings of Special Civil Application No. 526 of 1991. She has also averred that before relieving her from the service, no prior notice or pay in lieu of the notice or compensation had been paid to her. According to her, the termination of her service was, therefore, illegal and she was required to be reinstated on her original post. 2.4. As against that, the petitioners, while resisting the claim by filing written statement at Exh. 14 have contended that the respondent was given appointment on daily wage basis on 28th January, 1991. Thereafter the recognized workers' union of the petitioners challenged the appointment of the respondent and several other employees of petitioner no. 1 before this Court by filing petition on the ground that the said appointments were not made by the petitioners in accordance with the recruitment regulations and the requisite procedure and hence those appointments were required to be quashed. In view of the same, the respondent was relieved from service in the evening of 30th January, 1991. It was contended that as a daily wager the respondent worked only for three days i.e. 28th January, 29th January and 30th January, 1991. She therefore, did not have any right to claim reinstatement on the original post together with back wages and continuity of service. Finally it was contended that the reference was required to be dismissed. 2.5. Before the Labour Court, both the parties led oral evidence as well as produced documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. The respondent examined herself at Exh.8 and the petitioners examined one Vasantbhai Ramshankar at Exh. 18. Apart from the documentary evidence that was produced by the parties which included the letter of appointment, the report of respondent, copy of the petition filed before this Court, the correspondence exchanged between the petitioners and the respondent, a list of employees junior to the respondent, etc., the learned advocates for the parties submitted written arguments also before the Labour Court.
(3.) On the strength of the material produced by the parties, Labour Court came to the conclusion that the termination of service of the respondent was illegal as no prior notice was given and also that no written order was passed assigning the reasons for termination of the service before the contract period. In the opinion of the Court the respondent was required to be reinstated on her original post with continuity of service. So far the payment of back wages is concerned, the Labour Court thought it fit to award the same with effect from 21st December, 1997 i.e. the date on which the reference appears to have been filed before the Labour Court. The petitioners have challenged this award.;