Point of Law: workman has retired from the services and, therefore, whatever benefit is available to the workman, after her retirement, needs to be granted to her due to the order of reinstatement with continuity of service. It is needless to say that if during the pendency of this petition, any compliance is made to Section 17-B of the I.D. Act, then, in that case, the amount needs to be adjusted to whatever amount is liable to be paid to the workman for reinstatement along with continuity of service

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the following prayers.

(A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of or in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside award dated 2-5-2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.2, Bhavnagar in Reference (L.C.B.) No.86 of 1989 – Annexure “A”.

(B) Pending the admission, disposal and final hearing of this petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the effect, operation, implementation, execution of the award dated 2-5-2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.2 in Reference (L.C.B.) No.86 of 1989 – Annexure “A”.

(C) Such other(s) and further relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to be granted in the interest of justice.

2. The brief facts of the present case is as under:-

2.1 The respondent was working in Watch Stone Department of the petitioner – company since 01.01.1976. The respondent – workman filed a Statement of Demand before the Labour Court on the ground that she was serving with the petitioner since 09.01.1976 and after completion of 12 years of services, her services came to be terminated w.e.f. 02.05.1988 without issuance of any notice or without giving any opportunity of being heard. It is contended that without following the provisions of the Labour Laws and without paying any compensation to the workman, her services came to be terminated. According to the workman, she has written a letter to the employer requesting it to take her on services and also to pay entire amount. It is contended that since her demand was not accepted by the employer, she approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner has initiated conciliation proceedings. However, the said proceedings is failed, the Assistant Commissioner has made reference under the I.D. Act to the Labour Court. It is also contended that the workman was not employed after termination of her service by the employer. It is further contended that since the reference was pending, the employer cannot terminate her services without permission of the Court. The workman has prayed to reinstate with continuity of service and back wages.

2.2 The claim of the workman has been resisted by the petitioner herein denying all the contentions of the workman of the statement of demand. It is contended that the services of the workman was terminated after due process of law. It is also contended that the necessary departmental inquiry was conducted against her and the charge-sheet came to be proved, she has been dismissed from the services after making payment of her dues. It is further contended that the workman was remained absent on duty and, thereafter, after departmental inquiry, she came to be dismissed from the services. However, it is admitted that the workman was serving from 01.01.1976 in Watch Stone Department as a workman and she had remained absent unauthorizedly and when the employer has written several letters to the workman, she has not remained present. It is contended that due to her absentisum, ultimately, chargesheet came to be served w.e.f. 21.04.1988 and copy thereof was also given to the Union. It is contended that the necessary departmental inquiry was conducted on 24.04.1988 and none was present on behalf of the workman. It is also contended that thereafter, the representative of the Union was called and he was informed to see to that the workman remained present on 01.05.1988, however, none was present on their behalf and, therefore, the departmental inquiry was conducted ex-parte. It is also contended that considering absentisum of the workman, she came to be dismissed from the service. It is contended that on the same, the petitioner has filed approval application before the Tribunal and one month salary was also sent to the workman. It is contended that the workman is not entitled to any reliefs as sought for by her.

2.3 It