1. This petition has been preferred against the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh in new Reference (LCJ) No.441/1990 [Old Reference (LCJ) No.1380/1985] dated 14.07.2006 whereby, the said reference was rejected.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner herein was serving as Gardener with the respondent since 1978 on daily wage of Rs.13.40. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent terminated the services of the petitioner on 01.04.1985 without following any process of law. Being aggrieved by the said action of the respondent, the petitioner had raised a dispute, which culminated into a reference being Reference (LCJ) No.441/1990 before the Labour Court, Junagadh. The said reference was, initially, allowed vide award dated 03.04.1999 and the respondent herein was directed to reinstate the petitioner on his original post with full back wages.
3. Against the said award, the respondent had preferred writ petition being S.C.A. No.3078/2002 before this Court. The said petition came to be allowed vide order dated 23.01.2006. While disposing of the said petition, this Court in paras 4 & 5 observed as under;
“4. I have gone through the award of the Labour Court and the evidence available on record. As a result of hearing and perusal of records, I am of the view that as the issue has now been settled by the full bench decision of this Court in the case of G.F.P.G.F.W union v State of Gujarat reported in 2004(2) GLR 1488, the best recourse at this stage is to remand the matter to the Labour Court for reconsideration. Hence the award of the Labour Court is required to be interfered with.
5. In the premises aforesaid, the petition is allowed. The award of the Labour Court is quashed and set aside.The Labour Court is directed to decide the matter afresh within a period of six months from today after taking into consideration the contentions raised by the petitioner herein. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.”
4. Pursuant to the order of remand, the Labour Court considered the reference afresh in light of the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court and thereafter, came to the conclusion that the respondent could not be classified as an“industry”under the provisions of the I.D. Act. In my opinion, the Labour Court was completely justified in dismissing the reference in view of the decision of the Full Bench. I am in complete agreement with the decision of the Labour Court and hence, find no reasons to entertain this petition.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) Pravin/*