1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Deepak Sanchela for the petitioner. For the respondent learned counsel Mr. Patel is appearing.
2. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 20/10/2011 passed by the Labour Court, Himmatnagar in Reference (LCH) No.20 of 2001 whereby the Labour Court has directed the present petitioner, Nagarpalika to reinstate the respondent with 25% back wages.
3. The record shows that the respondent workman has filed caveat. The Court is informed that advance copy of the petition was served and in response to service of advance copy of the petition, learned advocate Mr. H. K. Patel has appeared and made submissions on behalf of the respondent workman.
4. I have heard learned advocate Mr. Sanchela for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Patel for the respondent.
5. At the outset it is necessary to mention that in view of the submissions and particularly the stipulations made by learned advocates for petitioner and respondent, it is not necessary to enter into discussion about the merits of the award and the petition can be disposed of in view of stipulations made by learned advocates of the contesting parties.
6. In view of the stipulations made by learned advocates for the contesting parties, Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Patel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent. At the request of learned advocate for the petitioner and with consent of learned advocate for the respondent, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.
7. As mentioned herein above, learned advocate Mr.Sanchela for the petitioner submitted at the outset that the petitioner municipality did not have any objection to grant reinstatement to the respondent however, the petitioner municipality is seriously disputing the direction awarding back wages.
8. On the other hand learned advocate Mr. Patel for the respondent workman submitted that if the petitioner is ready and willing to grant reinstatement to the respondent then in that event the respondent is ready to waive the back wages.
9. So far as the award brought under challenge by the petitioner is concerned, it emerges from the award that the respondent herein had raised industrial dispute challenging the action of the petitioner of orally terminating his services with effect from June-2000.
10. He had alleged that he was working as Clerk-cum-Supervisor from 24/6/1996 and at the relevant time his salary was Rs.1895.40. He urged that he was terminated with effect from 28/6/2000.
11. It also emerges from the record that below Exh.10, the respondent workman had filed an application requesting the Labour Court to close the stage of filing written statement of the petitioner Municipality.
12. Thereafter, present respondent's oral evidence was recorded below Exh.15. The respondent was subjected to cross examination by learned advocate for the petitioner and thereafter the respondent workman closed stage of his evidence by submitting pursis/application Exh.-17. Thereafter the respondent workman's written arguments were tendered on record.
13. It was only at this stage that the petitioner Nagarpalika tried to tender evidence of its witness Mr. Shah and his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief was taken on record and he was subjected to cross examination. Subsequently by tendering application/pursis (Exh.-11), the petitioner declared that Nagarpalika did not desire to lead any other or further evidence.
14. Thus the stage of evidence was closed by the Labour Court.
15. The said order was followed by written submission by the petitioner municipality below Exh.-32.
16. The above mentioned developments of the proceedings give out that the petitioner had not filed any written statement before the Labour Court.
17. On examination of record, the Labour Court noticed that the respondent workman had worked for 307½ days in 1999-2000 and from March, 2000 to June, 2000, the respondent had worked for 97 days. On the basis of such evidence the Labour Court concluded that the petitioner had committed breach of Section-25(f). Having reached to the said conclusion, the labour Court passed award directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 25% back wages.
18. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the decision awarding back wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner initially submitted that the award is unsustainable and at the most the Labour Court could have awarded lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement. However, considering the record and other factual aspects learned advocate for the petitioner as mentioned at the outset, submitted that the petitioner municipality has no objection or does not have any reservation against reinstating the respondent workman, however, the direction for back wages may not be sustained. As mentioned above learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that respondent is ready and willing to waive back-wages if reinstatement is protected. Hence below mentioned direction is passed in light of joint submissions and stipulations made by learned advocates.
19. In view of submissions made by learned advocate for the contesting parties and stipulations made and the limited consensus arrived at between the parties, the award of the Labour court is modified and direction qua the reinstatement is not disturbed/is confirmed, however, the direction regarding back wages is set aside. Hence, the above order and direction are passed in view of the consensus between the parties and therefore, reasons are not recorded. The award accordingly stands modified and the petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.
20. The learned advocate has submitted that the petitioner Nagarpalika would address appropriate communication to the respondent within one week informing him the name of the officer to whom he should report for work.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) jani Top