ORAL JUDGMENT

This Court has, by order dated 21.9.2005, ordered to issue fresh notice to petitioner by making it returnable on 13th October, 2005. This notice has been served upon petitioner Dahod Nagarpalika and yet no appearance has been filed on behalf of petitioner and petitioner has also not appeared in person. Earlier also on 1st June, 2004, notice was issued to petitioner to engage advocate in view of the elevation of its Advocate Mr. M.R. Shah as a Judge to the bench of this Court. Said notice was also served upon the petitioner and subsequently fresh notice was also served upon petitioner and yet petitioner has failed to appear either in person or through any advocate. In view of that and also in view of the fact that it is a matter of 1999 wherein award of reinstatement made by labour court in the year 1999 has been stayed by this Court while issuing rule, this Court has taken up this matter for final hearing in absence of petitioner though served since benefit of section 17B of the ID Act, 1947 is is also not granted.

2. Through this petition, petitioner Dahod Nagarpalika has challenged award made by labour court,Godhra in Reference No. 20 of 1990 (Old No. 182 of 1984) dated 11th January, 1999 wherein labour court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service without back wages for intervening period in favour of two workmen namely (1) Shri Natvar Bijiya and (2) Shri Bhursing Kalu and also directed petitioner to pay lumsum amount of Rs.10,000.00 to each in lieu of back wages for intervening period with cost of Rs.2000.00. This Court issued rule on 11th August, 2000. Meanwhile, award made by labour court, Godhra dated 11.1.1999 has been stayed until further order without granting any relief in favour of workman under section 17B of the ID Act, 1947. Initially, reference was made at the instance of eight workmen those who are respondents in this petition. Out of eight workmen, (1) Shri Natvar Bijiya and (2) Shri Bhursing Kalu are respondents No. 1 and 4 respectively in this petition. Rest of respondents have been reinstated in service by petitioner, therefore, labour court has not granted any relief in their favour except (1) Shri Natvar Bijiya and (2) Shri Bhursing Kalu.

3. Before labour court, statement of claim was filed by workmen against which written statement was filed by petitioner. Both the parties have produced certain documents before labour court and oral evidence was also led before labour court by the parties. Labour Court has discussed evidence on record in para 1 to 16. Labour court has also discussed in aforesaid paragraphs about documents and contentions of respective parties. Thereafter, labour court has given reasoning from paragraph 17. Labour Court has come to conclusion that in reference, total eight workmen are concerned whose termination order was challenged by concerned workmen. Before labour court, vide Exh. 12 and 13, two workmen namely Bhursing Kalu and Natvar Bigiya were examined and workmen were represented by their representative Shri Bhogibhai Makwana before the labour court that now said reference has to be decided by labour court in respect of these workmen Bhursing Kalu and Natvar Bijiya. Labour court discussed evidence led before labour court that said two workmen were working as daily rated employees in petitioner establishment and at the relevant time when their services were terminated, no notice or notice pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation were paid by petitioner to them. Before labour court, it was contended by petitioner that after reference was made, these two workmen were called by petitioner and they were working with petitioner. These facts were disproved by oral evidence of two workmen before labour court. Both workmen denied such assertions made by petitioner and specifically averred that both were called by petitioner but when they had gone to resume in response to such call, they were not permitted by petitioner to resume duty. Not only that, in