By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned judgement and award passed by Labour Court, Godhra, in Reference L.C.G. No. 359 of 1996 on 7.1.2006. The Labour Court by the said judgement and award allowed the Reference with a direction to the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman in service with continuity of services and 50% backwages. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent workman filed claim statement in Reference LCG No. 359 of 1996. It is stated by the respondent workman that he had worked from 7.5.1994 to 1995. The petitioner orally terminated the services of the workman without giving any notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation, in violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent workman also claimed that he had worked for 240 days in a year.
3. The said claim statement was resisted by the petitioner by filing written statement. The petitioner stated that the respondent workman worked as a daily wager and denied the claim of the workman that he had worked for 240 days in a year.
4. The Labour Court after hearing the parties and considering the facts and evidence on record, passed the award as stated above.
5. The Labour Court while considering the case of the original claimant has given the findings that there is breach of provisions of Sections 25F, 25G, 25H and 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Though served, none appeared for the respondent. I have perused the judgement and award of the Labour Court. I am in full agreement with the award of the Labour Court directing the petitioner to reinstate the workman with continuity of services. However, no reasons are assigned by the Labour Court for awarding 50% backwages to the workman.
7. In that view of the matter, the judgment and award of the Labour Court dated 7.1.2006 passed in Reference L.C.G. No. 359 of 1996 is confirmed so far as reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service is concerned and the order directing the petitioner to pay 50% backwages to the respondent workman is quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (pkn)