Point of Law: Labour law – Reinstatement - Granting of relief of reinstatement after such a long gap will not serve any purpose and, therefore, this Court is of the view that if the order to grant compensation

JUDGMENT :

1. All these petitions have been filed by the petitioner- Bhavnagar District Panchayat under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside common award passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) Nos.99, 101, 114, 115, 116, 117 and 118 of 1992, whereby the petitioner herein has been directed to reinstate all the workmen with continuity of service and 10% backwages with all ancillary benefits. Details of the different Special Civil Applications preferred against different workmen and reference numbers in which the award is passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar, are as under:-

2. Heard Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Rajesh Mankad, learned advocate for the respondents-workmen through video conferencing.

3. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that all the workmen were daily wagers and they were not appointed on regular basis and they were appointed without following due procedure of recruitment and they were appointed purely on ad-hoc and temporary basis. It is also contended that there was no permanent sanctioned post and, therefore, the workmen have no right to continue irrespective of availability of work and funds. It is also contended that without considering the written statement of the petitioner herein, learned Labour Court has granted the prayer of reinstatement after 17 years, which may result into various administrative problems as well as financial burden. It is also contended that the respondents-workmen have never worked for 240 days in any of the year and, therefore, there was no question of granting award in their favour. It is contended that there was no retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2 (oo), (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act as the workmen were working for repair and maintenance work and as soon as the work is over, they were bound to be discontinued. According to the petitioner, all these facts have not been considered by the Labour Court while passing the impugned award.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the workmen have filed their respective references before the Labour Court on the ground that they were serving since last three years before filing of the reference and they were being paid daily wages at the rate of Rs.20/- and they were not being paid minimum wages and were not granted any benefit as per the Government Resolution and, therefore, they have requested the Deputy Executive Engineer, due to that their services came to be terminated orally on 12.1.1992. It is their case that as they were not taken in service, they have issued notice on 22.2.1992. Same was not replied by the original respondent-employer. Therefore, they moved Assistant Labour Commissioner vide complaint dated 29.2.1992, wherein the employer was called for, but nobody remained present on his behalf. It is also the case of the workmen that thereafter, the Assistant Labour Commissioner has referred the matter to the Labour Court. It is also the case of the workmen that they have not been paid any retrenchment allowance or notice pay nor they were served with any notice prior to termination of their service. It is also contended that, after termination of their service, the employer has employed other persons on the same post and, thus, there is breach of provisions