Point of Law: Labour Court has therefore rightly come to the conclusion that there is breach of Section 25F of the Act. Such finding of fact has been rightly and succinctly considered by the learned Single Judge

ORDER :

R.M.CHHAYA , J.

1. Heard Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 3.12.2020 read with the order dated 21.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge (Coram: Mr. Ashutosh J. Shastri, J.) rendered in Special Civil Application no.14804 of 2020, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

3. Before considering the submissions made by Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant, it would be appropriate to refer to the factual matrix arising out of this appeal.

4. That, the private respondent herein was appointed as a Driver on daily wage basis on 19.11.1992 and was discontinued and terminated from service with effect from 1.8.2009. Being aggrieved by the same, the private respondent raised a dispute as provided under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), which came to be registered as Reference LCP no.9 of 2014 before the Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Palanpur, District Banaskantha. It was the case of the private respondent before the Labour Court that he was appointed as Driver with effect from 19.11.1992 on daily wage basis and was paid minimum wages. It was the case of the private respondent that he has worked for more than 240 days in every year i.e. from 1992 till 2009. It was the case of the private respondent before the Labour Court that inspite of an application filed by the private respondent before the appellate authority not to discontinue or terminate his service, his service came to be discontinued and terminated arbitrarily. It was the case of the private respondent before the Labour Court that the appellate authority has committed breach of Sections 25F, G and H of the Act. It was specifically case of the private respondent that without following procedure and without giving any notice or notice pay and/or compensation arbitrarily, the service of the respondent has been discontinued and terminated from 1.8.2009. As per the award, the respondent was examined at Exh.23 and the respondent also adduced documentary evidence at Exh.36. The appellant also examined one of his witness – Shri Dipak Karsanbhai Sonar at Exh.32 and also produced documentary evidence at Exh.15. The Labour Court, after appreciating the evidence on record both oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the sides and after appreciation of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that even as per the log book which is produced on record at Exh.36 and other evidence on record came to a finding of fact that the respondent has worked from 19.11.1992 till 30.7.2009 continuously. The Labour Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the order of 29 days has been produced on record which clearly proves the fact that the respondent has worked as ad-hoc Driver with the appellant–organization and he has worked for more than 240 days in the last 12 months preceding his discontinuation from service. After appreciating the evidence as a whole and relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. V.A. Sankaralingam, reported in 2009 (1) GLH 503, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the respondent is covered under the definition of “workman” as defined under Section 25 of the Act and was pleased to hold that the respondent has worked for 240 days in the last 12 preceding months and thus, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that there is breach of provisions of Section 25F of the Act. However, upon appreciation of the evidence on facts, the Labour Court was ultimately pleased to partly allow the Reference and passed the award by reinstating the respondent with continuity of service, however, without any backwages along with cost of Rs.1,500/-.

5. The appellant herein, being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, preferred a Writ P