Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 602 (GUJ)

Ramjibhai Dhanjibhai v. Deputy Executive Engineer

2010-12-21

K.A.PUJ

body2010
ORDER : K.A. Puj, J. 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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-roil 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. He is not on regular pay-roil 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.