Sub-Divisional Officer And Anr. vs Bhagwan Shankar Shinde
2002 Latest Caselaw 72 Bom

JUDGMENT

R.S. Mohite, J.

1. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioner challenges an Award dated 2-7-1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Akola. The matter came to Labour Court by way of reference sent by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur under section 10(1) read with section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The sole respondent was in the employment of the petitioner since 1977 and was terminated on 1-8-1985. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent was working as the Mailcooli. It was contended by the respondent that he was a permanent worker, who had worked continuously for more than 240 days in each preceding year. He was terminated with effect from 1-8-1985 without assigning any reasons and without giving one month's notice or offering retrenchment compensation. It was further his grievance that his juniors were retained in the services. The present petitioner had filed written statement before the Labour Court denying the allegations and contending that the workman was engaged purely on temporarily basis as availability of work and never completed 240 days.

3. It appears that the Labour Court decided the matter ex parte and granted reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages, as there was none present to cross-examine the worker and that as petitioner had not examined any witness in support of their case. Further, they had failed to produce documents, as directed by the Labour Court vide order dated 2-7-1999.

4. The ground taken in the petition is that on the date fixed for leading of evidence the Counsel for petitioner was busy in another case before another Court and one more chance is ought to have been granted. They further contended that they had filed written statement categorically stating that the respondent was employed on daily wages. Reference is made to Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and others v. State of Bihar and others, in which, it has been held that if appointment is made on the basis of need of work, termination of their services cannot be construed as retrenchment.

5. Without making any comments on the merits of the matter, it is felt that in the interest of justice and to avoid long pendency in this Court, the matter should be remanded, at this stage so that a judgment can be delivered on hearing of both the sides.

6. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute. The Award passed by the Labour Court, Akola on 2-7-1999 in Reference I.D.A. No. 86 of 1987 is set aside and the matter is remanded for a fresh determination, on merits.

7. The respondent No. 1 will be entitled for payment of full wages of last working day under section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, which will be his salary of which he would be entitled on reinstatement, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Authority, Dena Bank & another v. Ghanshyanm, reported in 2002(1) All.M.R. 290(S.C.).

8. The petitioner is also put to cost of Rs. 1000/-.

9. The full wages of last works as well as the cost will be deposited by the petitioner in the Labour Court, Akola, within a period of two months, from today.

10. The respondent No. 1 will be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited, in lieu of his full wages of last working, without any security.

11. Advocate for the petitioner makes a statement that all documents will be produced by them as per Court order dated 6-7-1998, within a period of two months.

12. The Labour Court, Akola to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and in any case, before 31st July, 2002.