Decided on May 01,2014

L.S. Patwa High School Appellant
Sher Biladkhan Bismillakhan Respondents


- (1.) By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and award of the Labour Court, Visnagar, Dated: 04.11.2006, rendered in Reference (LCK) No. 538/1993, whereby, the Labour Court set aside the order of the petitioners dated 13.07.1993 and directed them to reinstate the Respondent-workman on his original post along with continuity of service and 50 per cent, back-wages and other consequential benefits. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Respondent was engaged as a watchman by the petitioners for the purpose of looking after the school premises, since, the school premises had no boundary, at that point of time. The Respondent-workman was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 250/- per month. According to the petitioners, the work of the Respondent-workman was hardly of two hours before commencement of the school activities. It is, further, the case of the petitioners that after March 1993, Respondent-workman stopped reporting for his duty on his own and later on instituted the aforesaid reference before the Labour Court. The stand taken by the petitioners before the Labour Court was that, since, compound wall is constructed surrounding the school premises, services of the Respondent-workman are, even otherwise, no longer required. On the other hand, the case of the Respondent-workman was that his services were terminated by the petitioners by orally without following the due procedure of law. The Labour Court, then, passed the impugned order. Hence, the present petition.
(2.) Mr. Patel, learned Advocate for the petitioners, submitted that the Labour Court erred in passing the impugned order and it ought to have appreciated the fact that the Respondent workman was engaged as casual watchman for the purpose of looking after the school premises. He, further, submitted that the Labour Court committed an error in believing the case of Respondent-Workman that his services were terminated by the petitioners by an oral order and, in fact, it was the Respondent-workman, who, on his own, stopped reporting for duty. He, then, submitted that the Labour Court failed to appreciate the fact that in his Statement of Claim, the Respondent-workman nowhere pleaded that he was unemployed. He, therefore, prayed that the petition be allowed.
(3.) In support of his submission, Mr. Patel, placed reliance on the following decisions; (1) Nagar Mahapalika (Now Municipal Corporation) v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2006 AIR(SC) 2113; (2) Municipal Council, Sujapur v. Surinder Kumar, 2006 AIR(SC) 2164 ;;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.