1. Since all these petitions arise out of the same judgment and award, they are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. By way of these petitions, the petitioner- State of Gujarat, has challenged the common judgement and award dated 21.04.2011, passed by the Incharge Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dahod, in Reference (LCD) No. 203 of 2008 (old No. 266 of 2000), to Reference (LCD) No. 228 of 2008 (old No. HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Tue Nov 21 23:29:03 IST 2017 SCA/4413/2012 2/3 ORDER 291 of 2000), Reference (LCD) No. 230 of 2008 (old No. 293 of 2000) to Reference (LCD) No. 232 of 2008 (Old No. 295 of 2000), whereby the Reference Court has partly allowed the said references and granted lump sum compensation to the respondents- workmen in lieu of reinstatement.
3. The brief facts leading to filing of these petitions are that the petitioner floated a Project namely Social Forestry Project for the benefit of the community. The respondent-workmen were working in the said project. However, upon closure of the said project, industrial dispute has been raised by the respondent-workmen before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The Assistant Labour Commissioner has referred the said Reference to the Incharge Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dahod. The Labour Court vide judgement and award dated 21.04.2011 partly allowed the said reference and granted lump sum amount in lieu of reinstatement. Against the said award present petitions are filed by the petitioner-State.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Tue Nov 21 23:29:03 IST 2017 SCA/4413/2012 3/3 ORDER 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 learned advocate for the petitioner has taken the contention that the project was for a limited period of time and the retrenchment of the workmen is just and proper. However, from the record it is clear that provisions of section 2(00)(bb) of the I.D. Act, are not attracted and nothing has been produced on record to show that the project was for a limited period. 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 reason to entertain the present petitions.
5. In the result, these petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.
[K.S. JHAVERI,J.] pawan HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Tue Nov 21 23:29:03 IST 2017