Violation of mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act does not automatically lead to reinstatement with full back wages; the relief granted depends on the facts of individual cases.

JUDGMENT :

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. Rule. Learned Advocate, Mr. Samir Gohi, waives service of rule for the Respondent- Workman.

1.1 Since, the issue involved in this petition, runs in a narrow compass, with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, the same is taken-up for hearing and final disposal, at the admission stage.

2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned award, dated 07.01.2017, passed by Labour Court No. 1, Junagadh, in Reference-T Case No. 22 of 2007, whereby, the Tribunal ordered the petitioner to reinstate the Respondent-Workman with the continuity of service, but, without back-wages.

3. Learned Advocate, Ms. Acharya, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Respondent-Workman was appointed as a part-time Peon on daily wage basis and she was to work for two hours a day. The duty of the Respondent-Workman was cleaning and providing water in the Primary School, Keshod.

3.1 It was submitted that the Respondent-Workman joined services with the petitioner on 01.04.1997 and thereafter, she worked as a daily wager in Mid Day Meal Scheme from the year 2004 to 2006.

3.2 It was submitted that, as per Government Resolution dated 01.08.2006, the appointment of the Respondent-Workman was not extended.

3.3 At this stage, it is pointed out that the Respondent-Workman raised industrial dispute, which was referred to the concerned Labour Court, whereupon, the concerned Labour Court passed the impugned award dated 07.01.2017, directing the petitioner to reinstate the Respondent-Workman with continuity of service.

3.4 Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

4. Learned Advocate, Mr. Acharya, appearing for the petitioner has mainly contended that before the Labour Court the petitioner had produced documentary evidence and had also examined witnesses. However, the Labour Court committed an error by recording the findings that the petitioner terminated the services of the Respondent-Workman without following the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in brief ‘the Act’).

4.1 Learned Advocate, Ms. Acharya, referred to the observations made by the Labour Court in the impugned award and submitted that the Respondent-Workman is not entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, as is directed by the Labour Court.

4.2 In the alternative, learned Advocate, Ms. Acharya, submitted that considering the present age of the Respondent-Workman, in lieu of reinstatement with continuity of service, this Court may order the petitioner to pay lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement with continuity of service.

5. On the other hand, learned Advocate, Mr. Gohil, appearing for the Respondent-Workman strongly opposed this petition and contended that after considering the documentary as well as the oral evidence produced by the parties before the Labour Court, the Labour Court has passed the impugned award, directing the petitioner to reinstate the Respondent-Workman with continuity of service, but, without any back-wages.

5.1 It was, therefore, submitted that the Labour Court committed no error in passing the impugned award and this Court may not entertain this petition.

5.2 However, learned Advocate, Mr. Gohil, alternatively submitted that considering the date of award and the present age of the petitioner, if, this Court awards some lump-sum compensation, in lieu of reinstatement with continuity of service, the ends of justice would be met.

5.3 In support of his submissions, learned Advocate, Mr. Gohil, placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court, dated 13.07.2021, rendered in the case of Madhya Bharat Gramin Bank vs. Panchamlal Yadav in Civil Appeal No. 9792 of 2010.

6. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and having perused the documents produced on record, it transpires that the Respondent-Workman, initially, was appointed by the petitioner on the post of peon on daily-wage basis wi