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.