1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and award dated 14.05.2012 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference CGITA No. 972 of 2004 (Old Reference ITC 24 of 1994), whereby the the Labour Court has partly allowed the Reference and directed the present petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the respondent workman-B.D. Chauhan within 30 days of publication of award, failing which, the amount of compensation will carry interest @9% per annum and also ordered to pay Rs.500/- being the cost.
2. The short facts as per the petition are as under:
2.1 That on 16.01.1988, B.D. Chauhan, the respondent no.1 was engaged as Extra Department Agent purely on temporary and ad hoc basis till availability of official having requisite qualifications since the respondent no.1 had passed only 7th Std. and the minimum requirement was Std. VII and he was paid Rs.450/- per month.
2.2 That on 22.06.1989, a provisional order was issued to the respondent on certain terms and conditions stipulated therein, which were accepted by the respondent no.1.
2.3 That on 12.06.1990, one Smt. K.P. Shrimali, was appointed as Extra Department Agent, Branch Post Master, Kutch as she was found eligible and was possessing the requisite qualification for the said post. Consequent thereupon, the respondent no.1 came to be relieved/removed from service and feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed a complaint before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Adipur, Kutch. The said conciliation proceedings failed and therefore, the respondent no.1 preferred an application before the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, which came to be registered as Ref. (ITC) No.24 of 1994 and the same came to be transferred to the Central Tribunal at Ahmedabad and registered as Reference CGITA No.972 of 2004. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal passed the aforesaid award.
3. Mr. Nishant Lalakiya, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the Labour Court is contrary to evidence on record and therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set aside.
4. Mr. Yogen Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent no.1 has supported the order of the Labour Court.
5. I have heard the learned advocates of both the sides and perused the material on record. I am of the view that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is just and proper. It is borne out that the workman had completed 240 days of work in the year preceding the one in which he was terminated. However, as he was a daily wager, the Labour Court tried to strike a balance in awarding lumpsum compensation instead of reinstatement of B.D. Chauhan. I am in compete agreement with the view taken by the Labour Court. The compensation amount of Rs.30,000/-is just and proper. It is made clear that the said amount of compensation will be paid to the respondent no.1 workman-B.D. Chauhan within a period of three months from today. If the said amount is not paid within the stipulated time, the respondent workman shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum as granted by the Labour Court.
In view of the above, the petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. Direct Service is permitted.
Chandrashekhar* (K.S.JHAVERI, J.)