( 1 ) THE petitioner-Saurashtra University has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the award passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No. 2043 of 1988 on 20th July, 1996, whereby the Labour Court has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and full back wages.

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that the respondent joined the petitioner-University as a Cook-cum-Attendant vide Office Order dated 25th June, 1985 for a period of one year on probation. During the course of period of probation, though the performance of the respondent as a Cook-cum- Attendant was not satisfactory and upto the mark, only with a view to afford him a chance to improve, his probation period was subsequently extended for a period of three months and as per the extension letter, the respondents tenure as probationer was to come to an end on 30th September, 1986. It is also the case of the petitioner that even after the extension of his probation period of three months, the performance of his duties was not found satisfactory and upto the mark. Hence, as per the conditions of his appointment, as a fixed term appointment for a stipulated period, he came to be relieved from the service of the petitioner with effect from 30th September, 1986 as a Cook-cum-Attendant.

( 3 ) THE respondent challenged the said order before the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No. 2043 of 1988 on several grounds. The Labour Court has, however, granted the said Reference in favour of the respondent and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and full back wages. It is this order of the Labour Court, which is under challenge in the present petition.

( 4 ) MR. ANOOP Krishnan, learned Advocate appearing for M/s. Trivedi and Gupta for the petitioner, challenged the award passed by the Labour Court mainly on the ground that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Reference. He has further submitted that the respondent was only a probationer and the provisions contained in Section-25 (F) and other relevant regulations are not required to be applied and as per the settled legal position, the termination of the petitioner would not amount to retrenchment. He has also challenged the award of the Labour Court on the ground that the respondent-workman was gainfully employed and despite the fact that the respondent has deposed in his evidence to that effect, the Labour Court has awarded full back wages to him and has thus committed an error in passing the impugned award. 4. 1 So far as the contention regarding the jurisdiction of the Labour Court is concerned, Mr. Krishnan relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Saurashtra University vs. Saurashtra University Karmachari Parivar, decided on 26th June, 2003 in Special Civil Application No. 5433 of 2002 with Civil Application No. 1649 of 2003, wherein this Court has observed that an appropriate forum for resolution of the dispute is provided under the special statute by a specific provision, that is, Section-8 of the Act, and the jurisdiction of the other forums is barred by Subsection-3 of Section-7. In such circumstances, it will be the forum provided under the statute, which will have the jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties. The Court has further held that the forum, which is provided under the Act, will have jurisdiction to try and decide the dispute between the parties and not the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal. The Court, therefore, directed the Industrial Tribunal to return the papers of the Reference to the respondent-Union so as to file the same before the Tribunal constituted under the Act for its adjudication. 4. 2 The aforesaid judgement of the learned single Judge was challenged in the Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench and the Division Bench has confirmed the judgement of the learned single J

Click Here to Read the rest of this document