1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.02.2012, passed by the Presiding officer, Labour Court, Mehsana, in Reference Case (LCM) No.524 of 2008( old No. Reference case(LCK) No.83 of 2004, whereby the Reference Court has partly allowed the said reference and awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner-workman.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the petitioner was the employee of the respondent-Nagarpalika. The services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondent Nagarpalika. Therefore, the petitioner raised Industrial dispute which was registered as Reference (LCK) No.83 of 2004(New (LCM) No. 554 of 2008). The Reference Court vide order dated 22.2.2012 partly allowed the said reference and awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner against which the present petition is filed by the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in deciding the reference. He further contended that the the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the material on record in its true perspective. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, reported in (2011) 6 SCC 584.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. I have gone through the impugned award and I find that the the judgement and award of the Reference Court is just and appropriate and in consonance with the evidence on record. Further the petitioner was not appointed through legal channel and even otherwise he was a daily wager employee. I am of the view that the practice of back door entry, can only be stopped by granting compensation. Therefore, 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 .
5. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI,J.) pawan Top