Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/15769/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15769 of 2010
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15770 of 2010
=========================================================
RAMJIBHAI
DHANJIBHAI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
ANAND B GOGIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MR BB GOGIA for Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date
: 21/12/2010
COMMON ORAL ORDER
In both these petitions
the petitioners have challenged the award passed by the Labour Court
for not granting back wages, though the Labour Court has granted
reinstatement.
It is the case of the
petitioner in Special Civil Application No.15769 of 2010 that the
petitioner workman worked continuously for period of more than 3
years and his services were terminated on 25.5.1984 without any
reason and without complying with the mandatory provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act. The workman was neither given one month
notice nor he was paid retrenchment compensation at the time of
termination of his service. It is also the case of the petitioner
that at the time of his termination, junior persons to the
petitioner were continued and even after termination fresh
recruitments were made by the respondent.
Similarly the case of the
petitioner in Special Civil Application No.15770 of 2010 is that he
has worked continuously for period of more than 5 years and his
services were terminated from 25.5.1984. The rest of the averments
made by the petitioner are same as that of Special Civil Application
No.15769 of 2010.
Mr.Anand Gogia, learned
advocate appearing for the petitioners in both these petitions, has
submitted that the Labour Court has not considered the settled legal
position and despite the fact that the provisions of Section 25F,
25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act were not complied with
and were violated. The Labour Court has merely passed an award of
reinstatement without any back wages. He has, therefore, submitted
that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court deserves to be
quashed and set aside. In any case the petitions require
consideration by this Court and hence they are required to be
admitted and appropriate direction be issued for awarding the back
wages.
Having heard learned
advocate appearing for the petitioner and having considered the
averments made in the petition as well as the impugned award passed
by the Labour Court, the Court is of the view that the petitioner is
a daily wager. He is not on regular pay-roll of the respondent. His
appointment is also without following the due procedure of law.
Neither they were recruited pursuant to any advertisement nor their
names were called from the Employment Exchange. The Labour Court has
taken into consideration all these aspects and decided case law on
subject. One more fact which was taken into consideration by the
Labour Court is that though services of the petitioner were orally
terminated in May, 1984 they have preferred reference in the year
1996 i.e. after expiry of period of more than 12 years. Considering
all these aspects the Labour Court has passed an award of
reinstatement but refused to grant back wages. The Court does not
find any infirmity in the award passed by the Labour Court, as in
such cases the petitioners are only at the most entitled to some
reasonable compensation. As against this the Labour Court has
granted reinstatement and hence the Labour Court is justified in not
awarding any back wages in these cases. There is no merit in these
petitions and hence both the petitions are accordingly dismissed
without any order as to costs.
(K.
A. PUJ, J.)
kks
Top