COMMISSIONER TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT Vs. BARAD VANVIRSINGH CHANDANSINH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned advocate Mr.G.K.Rathod waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.1.

(2.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the State Government challenging the judgment and award dtd. 29/7/2017 passed by the Labour Court in Reference (LCP) No.73 of 2011. By the aforesaid award, the respondent No.1 was ordered to be reinstated with continuity in service however, without back- wages.

(3.) Learned Assistant Government Pleader at the outset submitted that the respondent workman had filed Special Civil Application No.7185 of 1999, which came to be disposed of by an order dtd. 21/6/2000, wherein this Court has recorded the fact that the petition was extensively argued and thereafter, was permitted to be withdrawn to make a representation. It was observed that the decision on the representation made by the respondent-workman would not be final and would not be subjected to any challenge. Despite this order, the respondent-workman has changed the complexion of the litigation and filed reference praying for declaration that the oral termination is illegal and to reinstated the respondent- workman with continuity and with back-wages. Learned AGP further submitted that despite the reply given by the State in response to the statement of claim, which go on to indicate that the the respondent-workman had abandoned his service as he was transferred from Ambaji to Danta and has failed to report at the place of transfer. It is submitted that the Labour Court has not taken into consideration the observation of this Court in the previous petition filed and hence also the intention of the respondent-workman was mischievous in nature.