(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. We have heard learned counsel Mr.Premal R. Joshi for the appellant and Mr. U.T.Mishra for the respondent.
2. Appeal against the similar award has been dismissed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.838 of 2011 (in the case of Dhoraji Municipality Vs. Bahadursinh Natubha Gohil), vide order dated 14.6.2011.
3. The respondent was working as daily wager. After considering the material on record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled for reinstatement in service, but without any back wages. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment dated 25.1.2011 has upheld the view taken by the Labour Court. Paragraphs 2 to 6 of the impugned judgment are extracted below:-
"2. The First Party Employer - Municipality in Reference (LCR) No. 271 of 1996 from the Labour Court, Rajkot has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order and award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rajkot on 25.8.2010, whereunder, the Court has not awarded back wages but ordered reinstatement of the workman on recording finding of fact that the employer had terminated the services of the workman in breach of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and awarded Rs.2000/- by way of costs.
3. The workman had to raise the industrial dispute as he was working with Water Works Branch of original defendant employer as Repairer and drawing wages of Rs.44-40 per day. Despite his satisfactory work, workman's services came to be terminated unceremoniously from 1.7.1996. Though workman had completed 240 days at the relevant time so as to entitled him to receive retrenchment compensation, nothing was paid, no notice was issued and even while effecting the retrenchment, his juniors were continued and thus, there is breach of provisions of Section 25G of the I.D. Act and when the new employees were recruited, he was not called for employment, thus, there is a breach of Section 25H of the I.D. Act. The dispute was referred to the competent Court, wherein, it was marked as Reference (LCR) No. 271 of 1996. The Labour Court after assessing and analyzing the Reference, awarded that there is clear breach of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the I.D. Act and ordered reinstatement of the workman without back wages.
4. The Labour Court has in fact considered Exh 41, wherein, the workman produced documentary evidences and those documents were obtained by the workman under the provisions of the Right to Information Act and from the municipality itself. Those documents were endorsed accordingly by the concerned officers of the municipality. Those documents were exhibited at Exh. 42 and 44. Exh. 42 provides that the work of the workman was of Rojamdar and he was a daily wager. Exh. 55 contains 12 months attendance of the workman preceding the date of his termination i.e. 1.7.1996 and based there upon, there is clear recording that working did complete 240 days preceding 12 months from the date of his termination. The Labour Court has recorded unequivocally with regard to specific breach of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. The Labour Court, thereafter, has adverted to other documents i.e. Exh. 57 and testimony of the management witness at Ex.71 and has came to the conclusion that the employer recruited workmen after the retrenchment of the respondent workman and present employee was not called for reemployment and therefore, there is a breach of Sections 25G and 25H of the I.D. Act. Unfortunately the employer has not produced any documentary or oral evidence to refute the same.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has strenuously attempted to assail the said facts but unfortunately he could not show anything whereby, it can be said that the finding of the Labour Court was so perverse or contrary to record.
6. This Court is of the view that order of Labour Court may strictly not sustainable so far finding with regard to breach of Sections 25H and Section 25G is concerned, as there is reference with regard to recruitment of the workmen in different category. However, order can be sustained on finding of fact with regard to completion of 240 days by the workman in the preceding 12 months from the date of his termination. Now that finding alone is sufficient to sustain the order impugned. Thus, in view of the over all facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that termination of the workman was untenable in law and hence he was ordered to be reinstated without any back wages. This court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India may not interfere with the same as the finding of the Labour Court in reinstating the workman cannot be said to be so perverse so as to call for any interference. The petition being bereft of merits, deserves rejection and is rejected accordingly. Notice discharged. No costs."
4. From the aforesaid discussion, it appears that the appellant did not produce any documentary evidence to establish its case before the Labour Court or to contradict the case of the respondent.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any illegality either in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge or in the award of the Labour Court. This Appeal fails and is dismissed.
6. Since the main Appeal is dismissed, no orders are required to be passed on the Civil Application and it stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(V.M.
SAHAI, J.) Sd/-
(G.B.
SHAH, J.) omkar Top