Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9996/2009 2/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9996 of 2009
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Petitioner(s)
Versus
KESHUBHAI
KABABHAI KANDOLIYA - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR JASWANT K SHAH AGP for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR MUKESH H RATHOD for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 25/06/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1.0 By
way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the award dated 02.01.2009 passed by the learned Presiding
Officer, Labour Court No.2, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No. 235 of
1999 by which, present petitioner was ordered to reinstate the
respondent-workman on his original post without continuity of service
and backwages.
2.0 The
case of the petitioner is that the respondent workman working with
the present petitioner was terminated without following any procedure
of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. While his service was terminated,
his juniors were continued and therefore, present respondent had
filed the reference before the Labour Court, Rajkot being Reference
No. 235 of 1999. The same was partly allowed and petitioner was
ordered to reinstate the respondent-workman on his original post
without continuity of service and without backwages and without other
consequential benefits. Hence, this petition is filed against the
award of the labour Court directing the petitioner to reinstate the
respondent- workman.
3.0 Learned
Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the respondent- workman was daily wager and on ad hoc basis. As
and when the work was available, he was engaged and alloted work.
When the work was not available, the work was not given. Therefore,
it cannot be said that the respondent-workman was working
continuously. Hence, as the respondent-workman is not permanent
employee, he is not entitled for reinstatement. He further submitted
that respondent-workman has not completed 240 days since he was
working on daily wage basis. Hence, the respondent-workman is not
entitled for reinstatement and award of directing the petitioner to
reinstate the respondent-workman may be quashed and set aside.
4.0 As
a result of hearing and perusal of the record, it appears from the
award that the respondent-workman was daily wager on ad hoc basis.
The labour Court found that still there is work in the petitioner’s
office. It is not proved that none else is given work. The service
of the respondent-workman was terminated without notice or
retrenchment compensation. Hence, the award passed by the Labour
Court is just and proper. The award of reinstatement of the
respondent workman is just and proper. Hence, the petition is
dismissed. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI,
J.)
niru*
Top