District Panchayat Rajkot & 1 vs Abdulgafur Ahmedmiya Kazi

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned award dated 27.7.2004, passed by the Labour Court, in Reference (LCR) No.149 of 1993, whereby the Labour Court has directed the petitioner­Panchayat to reinstate the respondent­Workman on his original post without back wages.

2. The short facts leading to filing of this petition are that the respondent­workman was working on temporary / ad hoc basis with the petitioner­Panchayat since 1972. However, vide order dated 2.1.1974, the respondent­Workman was relieved from th service. Against the action of the petitioner­Panchayat, the respondent­workman filed Reference before the Labour Court. The Labour Court after considering th evidence on record partly allowed the reference and directed th petitioner­ Panchayat to reinstate the respondent­workman on his original post without any back wages. Hence, this petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material on record. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the respondent­Workman has been granted the benefit of 17­B of the I.D. Act. It appears from the record that respondent­workman has attend the age of superannuation, therefore, the only question comes for consideration is the continuity of service and back wages. Keeping in mind the evidence on record, this court is of the view that the order of reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wags is just and proper. However, the respondent­ workman is entitled for retirement benefit but the period from 02.01.1974 i.e. the date of termination till he approached the Labour Court i.e. 27th July, 2004 will be considered as “dias non”. However, the earlier service will be taken into consideration for retirement purpose.

4. With the above observations and clarifications, the present petition stands disposed of.

pawan (K.S.JHAVERI,J.)