JUDGMENT :

Harsha Devani, J.

By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 14.2.1994 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bharuch in Reference (LCV) No. 465/1987 (LCB) No. 185/1990.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent was working as a driver in the office of the Deputy Executive Engineer, Command Area, Road Sub Division, Bharuch from 30.5.1983. With effect from 19.5.1986, his services were terminated. The respondent, therefore, filed a reference application under section 10(1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") , before the Labour Court, Bharuch, seeking reinstatement with back wages. In the said application, the respondent had stated that he had been engaged as a permanent employee with effect from 30.5.1983 on monthly wages of Rs.800/-. That he had discharged his duties sincerely and honestly and that the respondent, without assigning any reason, had terminated his services with effect from 19.5.1986. Accordingly, he had prayed for reinstatement with back wages from the date of termination of his services.

3. In response to the application made by the respondent, the petitioner filed a reply exhibit-8 stating that since there was a workload with the Sub Division Office, the respondent-workman had been engaged as a work-charge driver in the office of the Executive Engineer, Command Area, Roads Division, Bharuch. However, because the work had come to an end and the Sub Division was closed down, it was not possible to reinstate the respondent-workman. Accordingly, letters dated 15.12.1987 and 3.2.1988 had been given to the respondent-workman. The respondent had also produced a copy of the appointment order as well as the payments made to the respondent-workman and the details with regard to the number of days on which he had discharged his duties. It was further stated that the workman had been appointed as a work-charge driver on a totally ad hoc basis with a clear condition that his services could be terminated at any time without notice. Hence, there was no question of reinstating him. Along with the documents produced by the petitioner, an office order No. 190 had also been produced whereby the respondent-workman had been appointed as a tanker driver in the year 1983 along with six other persons whose names had been called for from the Employment Exchange as well as the Social Welfare Officer, Bharuch. The said orders were effective only for a period of three months. Thereafter, another order dated 29.3.1984 was made appointing the respondent for eighty-nine days. Subsequently, by an office order No. 148, the respondent was placed in the pay scale of Rs.260-6-308-EB-6- 326-8-35-EB-8-390-10-400 in the year 1984 on a monthly salary of Rs.260/- plus other allowances as per the Government norms. He was also given an letter appointing him on probation for a period of one year and was allotted to the Sub-Division Office. Thereafter, by an order dated 31.12.1985, the respondent was appointed for eighty-nine days on the aforesaid pay scale. Subsequently, by another order No. 108/86, he was appointed for twenty-nine days on the same pay scale. The petitioner had also produced bills in respect of the payments made to the respondent-workman.

4. In the proceedings before the Labour Court, the respondent workman submitted his statement on oath stating that he was working as a driver on a monthly salary of Rs.800/- with effect from 30.5.1983 and that he was working as a permanent driver. That on 19.5.1986, without any reason, his service was orally terminated and in his place, a new person had been engaged. After termination of his service, he had made several attempts to seek employment elsewhere, but did not succeed. Hence, he had demanded reinstatement with full back wages. As against the statement on oath made by the respondent, on behalf of the petitioner, no evidence on oath, either written or oral