Important Point – When service of workman is terminated without following procedure prescribed by law, then direction to reinstate such illegally terminated workman would follow as a corollary and consequential direction.

K.M. Thaker, J. (Oral) - Heard Mr. Hasurkar, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Rathod, learned advocate for the respondent.

2. The petitioner - electricity board has taken out this petition against the award dated 25.11.2004 passed by the learned Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No.643 of 1993 whereby the learned Labour Court has directed the petitioner board to reinstate the respondent workman with continuity of service and to pay back wages at the rate of 25%.

3. The factual background giving rise to present petition is that, the respondent workman claimed that he was employed by the petitioner board w.e.f. 1.6.1990 and his service came to be illegally terminated w.e.f. 2.7.1993. The respondent workman also claimed that before terminating his service, the petitioner board had not followed the procedure as prescribed by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] and his service was orally and arbitrarily terminated in July 1993 though he had put in and completed work and service for more than 240 days before his service came to be terminated. On such allegations, the respondent workman raised dispute which was considered as industrial dispute and since any settlement was not arrived at between the parties, the appropriate Government passed order of reference dated 24.12.1993 and referred the dispute for adjudication to learned Labour Court at Rajkot. The said reference culminated into Reference (LCR) No.643 of 1993.

3.1 During the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, the respondent workman filed his statement of claim which contained above mentioned allegations. The statement of claim was taken on record at Exh.3. The petitioner board filed its written statement at Exh.8 and while denying the allegations by the respondent workman, the petitioner board claimed that the respondent workman was initially engaged from 1.6.1990 to 30.6.1990 for temporary work on adhoc and temporary basis for 30 days. It was claimed that order appointing the respondent workman for the said period was issued by the competent authority. According to the petitioner board, the respondent workman was, thereafter, engaged in different capacity w.e.f. 1.7.1990 to 28.7.1990. According to the petitioner board, the respondent workman was engaged in all for 58 days in two different capacities. The petitioner board also alleged that from and after 28.7.1990, the respondent workman was rendering his service as a contractor on piece rate basis, however, after some time, he found some other lucrative employment, he stopped working and abandoned the work by discontinuing the arrangement. The witness of the petitioner Board put-up different defence and alleged that the contract arrangement was discontinued after sometime as sufficient number of employees were available with the Board. It was also claimed that the respondent workman raised a dispute and sought reinstatement. The petitioner board prayed that the reinstatement with consequential benefits claimed by the respondent workman is unjustified, which may be rejected. The parties to the proceedings led evidence, documentary as well as oral, and upon conclusion of the stage of evidence, learned counsel representing the contesting parties put forward their submissions. Learned Labour Court considered the submissions by learned counsel and also considered the documentary and oral evidence on record and found that while the petitioner board had raised defence on the ground that it was the respondent workman had abandoned the arrangement of working on piece rate basis, however, the witness of the petitioner board stated before the Court, during his deposition, that since sufficient number of employees were available and that therefore, the arrangement of engaging the respondent workman on piece work basis was discontinued by the Board.

The learned Labour Court, thus, found contradictions in the case and defence of the petitioner board. The learned Labour Co