1. By way of this petition, the petitioner-workman has challenged the judgement and order dated 06.08.2011, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.2, Rajkot, in Reference(LCR) No.161 of 1999, whereby the Reference Court has partly allowed the said Reference and directed the present respondents to reinstate the petitioner workman on his original post without backwages and continuity of service.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that the petitioner-workman was employed as peon under the respondent-Panchayat from 01.09.1996 to 31.03.1999. It is the say of the petitioner that he was terminated orally, without any written order and without serving one month notice. Therefore, the petitioner raised an Industrial dispute, as a result thereof, Reference(LCR) No. 161 of 1999. The Reference Court after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after recording the evidence has partly allowed the said Reference and directed the respondents-panchayat to reinstate the petitioner-workman on his original post without backwages and continuity of service, against which the present petition is filed by the petitioner-workman.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Reference Court erred in passing the impugned judgment and order. He further contended that the Reference Court atleast ought to have granted continuity of service. Therefore, he has prayed to allow the present petition.
4. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the decision of the the Apex Court, in the case of Gurpret Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Harayana, reported in 2002(0), GLHEL-SC 10242. Paragraph No.3 of the aforesaid decision reads as under:-
"3.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on examining the materials on record, We fail to understand how the continuity of service could be denied once the plaintiff is directed to be reinstated in service on setting aside the order of termination. It is not a case of fresh appointment, but it is a case of reinstatement. That being the position, direction of the High Court that the plaintiff will not get continuity of service cannot be sustained and we set aside that part of the impugned order. So far as the arrears of salary is concerned, we see no infirmity with the direction which was given by the lower appellate Court taking into account the facts and circumstances including the fact that the suit was filed after a considerable length of time. That part of the decree denying the arrears of salary stands affirmed and this appeal stands allowed in part to the extent indicated above."
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgement and order of the Reference Court and submitted that the appointment of the petitioner-workman itself is illegal. When he was appointed in service his aged was 43 years. He further contended that the petitioner-workman has worked only for three years and the proceedings dragged before the Labour Court for twelve years. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the present petition.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material on record. Prima facie, the appointment of the petitioner seems to be doubtful as he was appointed in the service at the age of 43 years. As per the Government Rules, 35 years is the maximum age to apply for Government job. It appears from the record that the petitioner-workman has only worked for 3 years and the proceedings dragged before the Labour Court for 12 years. Apart from that the petitioner was appointed under the project namely ICDS, Office of the District Panchayat,Jetpur and after completion of the said project he was released from the service.
7. I have gone through the impugned order and I find that the view taken by the Reference Court is just and appropriate. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the conclusion arrived at by the Reference Court and hence, I find no reasons to entertain the present petition.
8. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner will not apply to the facts of the present case as the appointment of the petitioner-workman itself is a back- door entry.
9. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI,J.) pawan Top