The relief of reinstatement should not be granted automatically, and the court may order payment of compensation instead, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT :

Shivakant Prasad, J.

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, APWD, Hut Bay, Little Andaman, Andaman and Nicobar Islands the writ petitioner has assailed the award dated 3rd July, 2018 passed by the learned Labour Court, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Port Blair in I.D.Case No. 01 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the writ petitioner being second party before the Labour Court was directed to reinstate the respondent namely Smt. K.Vasantha, first part-workman, hereinafter referred to as the respondent.

2. Mr. Sivabalan, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that statement of claim of the respondent regarding her termination from service by the writ petitioner is not legally tenable because after March 2007 the service of the respondent was never extended. Secondly that there is delay of more than three years in approaching the Labour Court in the year 2010 and over and above the date of termination has not been proved, yet, the learned Labour Court came to a conclusion that the service of the respondent was terminated by the writ petitioner.

3. The chronological event leading to this writ petition is that the respondent was temporarily engaged as Daily Rated Mazdoor purely on temporary basis and as per the requirement of work, who had worked for the establishment of the petitioner as Daily Rated Mazdoor on muster roll during the period from November, 2005. Thereafter she was engaged as Daily Rated Mazdoor on temporary basis during the period from January, 2006 to March 2007. The petitioners further case is that the muster roll is issued for a particular month specifically as per the need of the work clearly mentioning the period of date of commencement and date of completion and on expiry of specific date in the muster roll the services of the Daily Rated Mazdoor borne on that muster roll automatically comes to an end and subsequently for a new month new muster roll is issued, for which fresh entries are made once again. Accordingly, Mr. Sivabalan submitted that there is no question of termination of services of the respondent as her service automatically terminated on the closure of the muster roll.

4. It is also pointed out that in the year 2010 the respondent after several years approached the Labour Court alleging that she was illegally terminated from 01.04.2007 and the matter was referred to the learned Labour Court for adjudication under Sub Section 4 of Section 12 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

5. It would appear that the as per the provision of the Sub Section 4 of Section 12 of the Act relating to the duties of the Conciliation Officer, the officer concerned must have come to the finding on investigation and inquiry to ascertain the fact and circumstances relating to the dispute and for bringing about settlement thereof and for the reasons that settlement could not be arrived, such Conciliation Officer has made reference of the dispute to the Labour Court under the provision of Sub Section 5 of the Act.

6. The learned Labour Court passed the impugned award dated 03.07.2018 hearing the parties to the subject proceeding, directed reinstatement of the first party, respondent herein.

7. Mr. V.D. Sivabalan, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Labour Court has not considered the issue of limitation in entertaining the dispute under reference. It is submitted that the respondent had not worked for 240 days rendering continuous service in a calendar year. It is further pointed out that after March, 2007 the service of the first party was not extended and since there is delay of more than three years the reference was barred by limitation and the learned Labour Court should have decided the issue of limitation.

8. In my considered opinion the reference as to the dispute after industrial dispute has been ascertained by the Conciliation Officer, the subject proceeding before the learned Labour Court cannot be said to be barred by limitation. I am of the further view that