Judgment:
Oral Order
1. In both these petitions, challenge is made to the award of the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) Case No.18 of 1998 dated 19.12.2012 whereby the Reference is partly allowed and compensation of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded in favour of the workman.
2. The employer has challenged the said award by preferring Special Civil Application No.2282 of 2013 contending that going by the reasoning recorded by the Labour Court itself, even the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- could not have been granted. The workman has filed Special Civil Application No.8399 of 2013 contending that since compensation of Rs. 25,000/- is granted, even according to Labour Court, illegality was found in discontinuing services of the workman and therefore instead of compensation of Rs.25,000/-, reinstatement ought to have been granted.
3. Heard learned advocates. Rule, in Special Civil Application No.2282 of 2013. Mr. Rathod, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of Respondent No.1- workman.
4.1 Both the learned advocates have taken this Court through the material on record and the reasoning recorded by the Labour Court in the impugned award.
4.2 Learned advocate for the workman Mr.Rathod has contended that as per the statement of claim, the workman had served from year 1977 to 1997. It was also the case of the workman before the Labour Court that persons junior to him were continued in service and the same was not disputed by the Management and therefore, reinstatement ought to have been granted. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 3010 of 2013 dated 17.06.2013, in support of this contention.
4.3 On the other hand, Mr.S.P.Hasurkar, learned advocate for the employer has contended that there was no material on record to come to the conclusion that workman had not only not worked from the year 1977 to 1997, but even to the effect that he had completed 240 days of service. Attention of the Court is also drawn to that part of the reasoning of the Labour Court where it is recorded that in the year 1984, the workman had worked for about 84 days. According to the learned advocate for the employer, on the face of such facts, even no compensation could have been granted.
5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, more particularly reasoning recorded by the Labour Court, this Court finds that the claim of the workman was highly exaggerated before the Labour Court. Labour Court has categorically recorded that there is no material on record to come to conclusion that workman had even completed 240 days. In this situation, when it is claimed by the workman that the workman had worked for about 20 years, such ingenuine claim ought to have rejected and the Labour Court has rightly rejected it. This Court further finds that so far the contention of continuance of service of the persons, whom the workman calls his juniors, were qualified and as per the policy of the employer they were absorbed in regular employment. As per the reasoning recorded by the Labour Court, not only the workman did not complete 240 days, but had worked for less than 40 days. Under these circumstances, in my view, the employer is right in his contention that, even compensation of Rs.25,000/- ought not to have been granted to the workman. So far reliance placed by the workman on the decision of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No.3010 of 2013 dated 17.06.2013 is concerned, it is noted that, in the said case, this Court had recorded finding that the workman had been in service for not less than six years and further that discontinuance of service of the workman was victimization due to change in power in the Municipality. Therefore, the said decision in my view, will not the case of the workman any further. Considering the totality of the facts, this Court finds that the workman is not entitled to any relief and the impugned award of the Labour Court by which compensation of Rs.25,000/- is awarded in favour of the workman, needs to be quashed and set aside.
6. For the reasons recorded above:-
(a) Special Civil Application No.8399 of 2013 filed by the workman is rejected. Notice in that petition is discharged;
(b) Special Civil Application No.2282 of 2013 filed by the employer is allowed. The award passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar dated 19.12.2012 in Reference (LCB) Case No.18 of 1998 is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute.