Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 636 (GUJ)

Ganeshbhai T. Vankar v. Range Forest Officer

2013-10-17

JAYANT PATEL

body2013
Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—The present petition is directed against the award dated 28.1.2005 passed by the Labour Court in Reference (LCA) No. 1176 of 1988, so far it relates to not granting any back-wages to the petitioner. 2. The short facts of the case are that, as per the petitioner, he was working as daily-wager from 1981 to 1987 and he worked for more than 300 days in each year. His services came to be terminated on 6.10.1987 by oral order. The dispute was raised under the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) by the petitioner – workman. The said dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication being Reference (LCA) No. 1176 of 1988. The Reference Court, at the conclusion of the reference, found that the petitioner was already reinstated in service from 9.1.1996 and, therefore, order for reinstatement was not required to be passed. On the aspect of termination be declared as illegal, the prayer was not granted by the Labour Court, therefore, found that the back-wages were also not required to be awarded. It is under these circumstances, the present petition before this Court. 3. I have heard Mr. A.K. Clerk, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Jayswal, learned AGP for the respondent. 4. The perusal of the award passed by the Labour Court shows that as per the reasoning recorded by the Labour Court at paragraph 6, the Labour Court has recorded that Special Civil Application No. 2907/1987 was preferred by the petitioner before this Court after termination and the said petition has been dismissed by this Court on 9.12.1999. Under these circumstances, the Labour Court has found that the contention raised for termination of service be declared as illegal cannot be accepted. It further appears that the Labour Court has also found that the Forest Department cannot be considered as an industry. Upon these two counts the termination is found as not illegal. In my view, such an approach on the part of the Labour Court could not be said as unreasonable or improper, nor can be said as perverse to the record of the case. 5. As the termination is not found to be illegal, the Labour Court has not awarded back-wages. Such an approach also cannot be said as unreasonable or improper. 6. 5. As the termination is not found to be illegal, the Labour Court has not awarded back-wages. Such an approach also cannot be said as unreasonable or improper. 6. Under these circumstances, no case is made out for interference to the award passed by the Labour Court. Hence, the petition is meritless. Therefore, dismissed. Rule discharged. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.