Point of Law: There may be cases where termination of a daily-wage worker is found to be illegal on the ground that it was resorted to as unfair labour practice or in violation of the principle of last come first go viz. while retrenching such a worker daily wage juniors to him were retained. There may also be a situation that persons junior to him were regularised under some policy but the workman concerned terminated. In such circumstances, the terminated worker should not be denied reinstatement unless there are some other weighty reasons for adopting the course of grant of compensation instead of reinstatement. In such cases, reinstatement should be the rule and only in exceptional cases for the reasons stated to be in writing, such a relief can be denied

JUDGMENT :

A.P. THAKER, J.

1. Since all these matters tagged together and Special Civil Application No. 9531 of 2010 being treated as lead matter, facts are taken from Special Civil Application No. 9531 of 2010 with relevant facts of rest of the matters in nutshell. Special Civil Application No. 9531 of 2010 has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:-

“10.........

(A) To allow this petition with costs.

(B) To quash and set aside the judgment and award (Annexure-E) dated 13.4.2010 (received by the petitioner Corporation on 17.5.2010) passed in reference LCB No. 6/1999 by the Labour Court, Bhuj, as illegal, improper and without jurisdiction.

(C) To reject the Reference LCB No. 6/1999 filed by the respondent workman on the ground of want of jurisdiction and authority and otherwise on merits as stated above.

(D) To stay the execution and implementation of the award dated 13.4.2010 passed in Reference LCB No. 6/1999 by the Labour Court, Bhuj and not to give effect to the same in any manner, pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition.

(E) To pass such other and further orders in favour of the petitioners as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Sona Sagar for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. M.H. Rathod for the respondents at length through video conferencing.

3. Short facts of Special Civil Application No. 9531 of 2010 are that the respondent-workman has filed a reference (LCB) No. 6 of 1999 before Labour Court, Bhuj for getting permanency and regular pay on the ground that he was serving since 1986 in the petitioner Corporation. The main grievance raised by the workman is that he was serving in the Corporation since 1986 but he was not made permanent, whereas juniors to him were made permanent. The other ground raised by the workman was that there is a regular set up in the Corporation as the Corporation has issued advertisement for four posts of Shepherd and his case was not considered, though he has all qualifications requisite for the said post. The Corporation has also not given benefit of Government Resolution of 1988. He has demanded permanency on the post of Shepherd and all consequential benefits thereof. The was resisted by the Corporation by filing defence statement and submitted that the workman was merely a daily wager and there was reduction of work and number of other daily wagers were also relieved. It was also contended that the Corporation was not an industry and the workman has no right to get permanency and there is no sanctioned post available. Ultimately, it was prayed by the employer-Corporation to reject the reference.

4. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the Labour Court has passed the impugned award dated 30.4.2010 directing the Corporation to make the respondent permanent from 1.10.1997 and fix his pay notionally upto 31.3.2000 and difference of arrears be paid from 1.4.2000. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the Corporation has ultimately contended that the said award is legally not tenable in the eyes of law as the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to pass the order directing permanency to the daily wager. It is also contended that the Labour Court has not taken into consideration the defence put up by the Corporation and has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. It is also contended that the Labour Court has materially erred in not properly appreciating the ratio laid down in various decisions relied upon by the Corporation. It is also contended that the impugned award is erroneous one as the Labour Court cannot pass any mandatory order. In the pleadings, the Corporation has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Amreli Municipality vs. Gujarat Pradesh Municipal Employees Union, 2004 (3) GLR 1842. It is also contended that reliance placed upon the decision reported in 2005 (3) GLH 2152 by