A.P.Ravani, J. - (1.) Notice. Mr. H.K. Rathod who appears by caveat waives service of notice on behlaf of respondent.
(2.) The petitioner - Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation - challenges the legality and validity of the award dated December 12, 1992 passed by the Labour Court, Valsad. The Labour Court quashed and set aside the order dated November 13, 1984 discharging the respondent workman from service and directed the petitioner to reinstate the workman on his original post with continuity of service and with backwages to be calculated from November 30, 1984. The Labour Court also awarded Rs. 100/- as and by way of cost. The direction given by the Labour Court was to be complied with within thirty days from the date of publication of the award in the official gazette which is January 25, 1993. The petition is filed on July 20, 1993 without complying with the direction given by the Labour Court.
(3.) The respondent workman applied for the post of watchman on June 5, 1982. He was called for interview on March 20, 1982 by letter dated March 16, 1982. From that day onwards he was appointed as reliever watchman. He worked as watchman from March 20, 1982 till May 30, 1983 in the Divisional Office of the petitioner Corporation at Valsad. Thereafter he was transferred at Valsad Depot and there he worked from June 1, 1983 to November 30, 1984. From November 30, 1984 he had been discharged from service. The workman raised industrial dispute and the appropriate Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court. The Labour Court, on appreciation of evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that even if it is assumed that the workman was being engaged by issuing orders of appointment for limited period of thirty days, he did serve from March 20, 1982 till November 30, 1984 as reliever watchman at the Divisional Office, Valsad and at Valsad Depot of the petitioner Corporation. Thus the Labour Court found that the workman had put in two years and 8 months of service continuously. For attracting the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") the workman should have continuously served for a period of one year, i.e. 240 days. The Labour Court, on facts, found that the provisions of section 25F of the Act were attracted. Admittedly before putting an end to the service of the respondent-workman the provisions of section 25F of the Act have not been complied with. No notice has been issued, no retrenchment compensation has been paid to the workman. In view of this finding and in view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case the Labour Court held that the order of discharge from service was illegal and void and the workman was entitled to be reinstated in service on his original post with continuity of service and with full backwages.;