Mr. K.M. Thaker, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Joshi, learned AGP for the petitioner State, and Ms. Kamani and Mr. Pathak, learned advocates for the respondent workman.
(2.) In present petition, the Dy. Executive Engineer, R & B Department, has challenged award dated 7.3.2006 passed by learned Labour Court at Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.608 of 1998 whereby the learned Labour Court has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent claimant with 25% back-wages and with continuity of service.
(3.) So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record that present respondent i.e. original claimant raised industrial dispute with the allegation that he was working with the opponent employer since May 1982 at the salary of Rs. 500/- and that the opponent employer illegally and arbitrarily terminated his service on 1.4.1985 by oral order without following procedure prescribed by law. The claimant alleged that his service was terminated in breach of Section 25F, Section 25G and Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act [hereinafter referred to as the Act ] as well as in violation of principles of natural justice and without any fault on his part. With such allegations, the claimant demanded that he should be reinstated in service. 3.1 The opponent employer i.e. present petitioner opposed the reference and denied the allegations by the claimant. In its written statement, the opponent employer i.e. present petitioner contended that the claimant was engaged on daily wage basis as a casual labourer on ad-hoc basis and for temporary period. The opponent employer also contended that the claimant actually worked from 28.3.1985 to 16.4.1985 and during the said period, he worked only for 20 days. According to the opponent employer, thereafter, his service was not required and that therefore, he was not engaged. It was also claimed that during the said period of about three weeks, the claimant was engaged on daily wage basis and that therefore, the claimant has no right to continue in service or to demand reinstatement. The opponent employer also contended that in place of the claimant, any other person was not engaged and that therefore, the allegations about breach of statutory provisions are misconceived and baseless. With such submissions, the opponent employer contended that the reference should be rejected. 3.2 Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence. Upon conclusion of the evidence, the learned Labour Court heard submissions by learned advocates for the claimant workman and opponent employer and after considering material on record and rival submissions, the learned Labour Court passed the impugned award with above mentioned directions. ;