1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned award dated 19.02.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference [LCS] No. 152 of 2001, whereby the Labour Court has partly allowed the reference and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service but without any back wages.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent was working with the petitioner as a helper on temporary, adhoc and daily wage basis. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner without following due process of law terminated his services from April, 1988. Therefore, the respondent raised a dispute, which ultimately culminated into a reference before the Labour Court. In the said Reference, the respondent workman filed the written statement denying all the allegations. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence on record, partly allowed the reference by passing the impugned award. Hence, this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent is not present. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. However, pursuant to the order dated 25.03.2008, the respondent workman is already reinstated in service. The Labour Court after appreciating the entire evidence on record, the Labour Court found that the petitioner had committed breach of the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. while terminating the services of the respondent. It transpires from the record that the petitioner had not produced any documentary evidence in the form of attendance register or nominal register to prove that the respondent had not rendered more than 240 days of service. Thus, in absence of the documentary evidence, the Labour Court, held that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days of service and while terminating his services, no Notice or any Notice Pay or retrenchment compensation was paid to him. Hence, the action of the petitioner was in breach of the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. Therefore, the action of the petitioner was clearly illegal and bad in law. In my opinion, the Court below has not committed any illegality while directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service.
4. In view of the above, the Court below was completely justified in passing the impugned award. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the Court below in the impugned award and hence, find no reasons to interfere with the same.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/