JETPUR NAVAGADH NAGARPALIKA Vs. PARSHOTTAMBHAI SAVDASBHAI
LAWS(GJH)-2013-1-261
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on January 17,2013

Jetpur Navagadh Nagarpalika Appellant
VERSUS
Parshottambhai Savdasbhai Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE petitioner herein has prayed to quash and set aside the award dated 30.09.2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference LCR No. 505 of 1987 whereby the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent no. 1 on his original post with continuity of service without backwages.
(2.)IT is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 1 was working with the petitioner Nagarpalika as a daily wager peon. It is the case of the respondent workman before the Tribunal that he was terminated orally without following due procedure. Hence the workman preferred reference before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid order. Hence the present petition is preferred.
Mr. Trivedi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner Nagarpalika submitted that the Tribunal has erred in granting reinstatement without considering the fact that the respondent workman was only a daily wager peon and had not completed 240 days of service in the year preceding the one in which he was terminated and therefore no provision of section 25 of the Act has been violated. He submitted that there was no need of availing the service of the respondent workman and therefore he was terminated and was also gainfully employed elsewhere thereafter.

(3.)THIS court has heard learned advocate for the petitioner and perused the papers on record. The fact remains that the respondent workman was terminated from service without following due procedure under the law. The Tribunal in the impugned award has given reasons for passing the award. After hearing the arguments advanced by both the sides and after appreciating the documentary evidences produced by both the sides the Tribunal came to the conclusion that since the workman had not completed 240 days of service in the preceding calendar year, there was no breach of provisions of Section 25(F) of the I.D. Act. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that after terminating the service of the respondent workman the petitioner recruited new persons on the same post and therefore committed breach of sections 25(G) and (H) which coupled with Rule 81 are independent provisions and do not have any relation with compliance of section 25 (F). 4.1 The petitioner has committed breach of section 25( (G) & (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, I am not inclined to exercise powers under Section 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner ought to have followed the mandatory provisions in terminating the services of the respondent and in absence of the same this Court thinks it fit to confirm the order of the Tribunal granting reinstatement without backwages which is just and proper.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.