Point of Law: Once provisions of Section 25(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have been satisfied by the workman, then Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is made applicable

JUDGMENT :

B.N. KARIA, J.

1. By means of this Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the Appellant prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 4th May, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the Special Civil Application No. 5620 of 2011 preferred by the Appellant wherein, order dated 31st August, 2010 passed by the Labour Court at Bhuj in Reference (LCB) No. 78 of 2003 was confirmed by directing to reinstate the respondent in service with continuity but without back wages.

2. The factual matrix of the Appeal is described as under:-

2.1 The Respondent herein was provided work purely on temporary, adhoc and daily wages basis depending upon the administrative requirement during the monsoon season between 29th September, 1994 to January, 1998 without following due procedure of recruitment due to administrative exigencies. The Respondent had never worked continuously for 240 days in any of the year from 1994 to 1998. However, the Respondent approached the Labour Court at Bhuj, Kutchh by way of filing Reference (LCB) No. 78 of 2003, after more than five years praying for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages on the ground that he was illegally and unjustly discontinued with effect from 30th October, 2002 after his rendering service of approximately 10 years. The Appellant-Petitioner filed the detailed Written Statement before the Court below and denied the facts. Not only that even a statement showing number of working days was placed on record by the Appellant. Before the Labour Court, an employee of Kutchh District Panchayat was examined and was cross-examined. However, the Respondent herein failed to substantiate his case for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity by way of producing any documentary evidence, the Labour Court passed an Award dated 31st August, 2010 directing to reinstate the Respondent in service with continuity but without back wages.

2.2 The present Appellant, being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the said Award preferred Special Civil Application No. 5620 of 2011 before this Court which was also came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 4th May, 2011. Hence, the Present Letters Patent Appeal.

3. We have heard Learned Advocate Mr. H.S.Munshaw appearing for the Appellant and Learned Advocate Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyay appearing for the Respondent at length.

4. Learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant-Petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 4th May, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge confirming the Award dated 31st August, 2010 passed by the Labour Court at Bhuj in Reference (LCB) No. 78 of 2003 is erroneous and contrary to the facts as well as material place on record and also against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further submitted that Respondent herein was provided work purely on temporary, adhoc and daily wage basis to attend the work at different Dams and he had worked from 29th September, 1994 to January 1998 depending upon the availability of the work and funds during the months of Monsoon. It is further submitted that learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the same fact. The Respondent had never worked for 240 days in any of the calendar year and had worked only 57 days in the year 1996, 18 days in the year 1997 and 11 days in the month of January, 1998. In view of this, the provisions of Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 were not at all attracted and he was not entitled to claim for any relief. However, learned Single Judge has committed an error in not appreciating the said aspect. It is further submitted by learned Advocate for the Appellant that Respondent had filed Reference (LCB) No. 78 of 2003 before the Labour Court for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages after more than Five years and there was no justification for the said delay. That, the Respondent had never worked for a period of 10 years as claimed between 1992 to 2002. That, he had w