ORAL JUDGMENT

1. These captioned writ petitions are filed challenging judgement and award of CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad dated 06.10.2017, in Reference (CGITA) No.975 of 2004.

2. Special Civil Application No.16708 of 2018 is filed by the Senior Post Master, Rajkot (Gujarat) challenging the award dated 06.10.2017, wherein, retrenchment of workman was held in breach of Section of Section 25 F, 25 G & 25 H of the Industrial Disputes Act (“the Act” for short) and thus awarded lumpsum compensation of Rs.30,000/-, whereas, Special Civil Application No.18455 of 2018 is filed by legal heirs of deceased workman on the ground that though retrenchment was held in breach of Section 25 F, 25 G & 25 H of the Act, instead of reinstatement, meager amount of Rs.30,000/- was awarded. Special Civil Application No.18144 is filed by legal heirs of the deceased workman, since the workman expired during pendency of the proceedings.

3. Since both these writ petitions are filed challenging the judgement and award of CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad dated 06.10.2017, with the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, they are heard and decided together by this common judgement.

4. Facts, in brief, are as under:

It is case of the employer - Post Master, Rajkot that workman was appointed as out sider on 17.10.1988. In the appointment letter dated 17.10.1988, it was stated that appointment was for the period 17.10.1988 to 22.10.1988. The appointment was made as leave arrangement in place of regular employee Mr.L.M.Joshi. The workman was thereafter continued for some time as stop gap arrangement and was not called for work after 06.10.1990. Against the termination w.e.f. 06.10.1990, the workman raised dispute before CGIT-cum- Labour Court, Ahmedabad, registered as Reference (CGITA) No.975 of 2004. Upon adjudication, CGIT-cum-Labour Court held retrenchment as illegal and also awarded Rs.30,000/- as lumpsum compensation. Aggrieved by finding that retrenchment was illegal, Senior Post Master, Rajkot has preferred Special Civil Application No.16708 of 2018. Against the order of non-grant of reinstatement with continuity of service, the legal heirs of the workman have preferred Special Civil Application No.18455 of 2018.

5. Heard Mr.Harsheel Shukla, learned advocate for the Post Master, Rajkot and Ms. Kajal Lalwani, learned advocate for the workman.

6. Mr.Harsheel Shukla, learned advocate for the Senior Post Master, Rajkot submitted that the award of CGIT-cum-Labour Court is erroneous because from the appointment letter dated 17.10.1988, it is evident that workman was appointed as leave arrangement from 17.10.1988 to 22.10.1988. The said letter refers that he was an out sider unapproved candidate. As per the conditions of appointment letter, services of the workman was to get automatically discharged after specified period and for discharge no notice is required. Most importantly, office of Post Master, Rajkot is Central Government Office, where no appointment is permissible without following due process of recruitment and therefore, the findings recorded by the CGIT- cum-Labour Court that there is illegal termination is beyond scope of appointment letter.

7. Further, in appointment letter, it was referred that in case of early date of reporting by Mr.L.M.Joshi, workman shall be discharged by the appointing authority without any Notice or providing any reasons. Therefore, apparently appointment of the workman was made as stop gap arrangement as Mr.L.M.Joshi was on leave.

7.1 Further, if the award of the CGIT-cum-Labour Court is accepted on the aspect of smallness of amount, it would open floodgate of litigations. Since, the evidence on record was not considered by CGIT-cum-Labour Court, the award deserves to be quashed and set aside. Further, by the award dated 06.10.2017, the workman was treated as an employee of the Central Government Department without following any recruitment process and therefore, the petition filed by the Post Master deserve