- (1.) The petitioner, namely, United India Insurance Company Limited, has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashing and setting aside the judgment and award dated 12.8.1996 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Reference (ITC) No.46 of 1991. The Court has admitted the matter and issued rule on 11.3.1997 and interim relief was continued subject to the provision of Section 17-B of the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent workman has alleged that he has worked with the petitioner Company from 29.12.1980 to 24.12.1981 and he has been given artificial break during that period. It is also alleged in the statement of claim that he had performed his duties with the petitioner Company upto 15.6.1983 and thereafter, his services were illegally terminated. It was contention of the respondent workman before the Labour Court that he had completed more than 240 days of continuous service and, therefore, he was entitled to continue in service and since the action of the respondent Company was illegal arbitrary and violative of provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H, the petitioner was required to be reinstated with full back-wages in the service of the petitioner Company.
(2.) As against the case of the respondent workman, the petitioner's case before the Labour Court was that the respondent was engaged on temporary basis whenever temporary work was available on leave vacancies. It was also the case of the petitioner that during the period he was so engaged he was very irregular and was not performing his duties properly. The petitioner has also contended that the respondent workman was only a casual employee and not employed after following the due procedure through the employment exchange and was not entitled to continue in service nor was he entitled to any back door entry in the service of the petitioner - Company. The petitioner has also contended that admittedly the respondent worked upto 24.12.1981 or at the most upto June 1983. Thereafter, having got a better opportunity elsewhere he had left the services of the petitioner Company. He has raised a dispute after 10 years seeking reinstatement with back wages in service. It was, therefore, contended that the petitioner was not in service for the last 10 years.
(3.) Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the service of the petitioner was terminated on 24.12.1981 and that the reference was sought in the year 1991, after a considerable period of 8 to 10 years. Mr.Nanavati, has further submitted that the respondent was a casual employee employed only when temporary or casual work was available. It is further submitted that the respondent workman was not suggested by the employment exchange and he was not regularly appointed person. He has, therefore, submitted that the respondent was seeking a back door entry in the employment of the petitioner Company, which was not permissible under law and, therefore, the Tribunal has erroneously passed an order reinstating the petitioner with or without back wages.;