ORAL ORDER

1. Both these writ petitions impugned the common judgment and award dated 27.08.2015 passed by the learned Labour Court, Dahod in Reference (LCD) No. 965 of 2008.

2. The factual matrix in the present case is that the petitioner herein in Special Civil Application No. 19371 of 2015 was working as a Watchman with respondent No.1 since 1988 and had served continuously for more than 15 years before he came to be terminated orally w.e.f. 01.01.2003. Thereafter, the petitioner raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Godhra, who by communication dated 05.03.2007 made the Reference to the learned Labour Court, which came to be registered as Reference (LCD) No. 965 of 2008. By the impugned order, the learned Labour Court has held that there is breach of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘I.D. Act’) and has ordered reinstatement of the petitioner to his original post along with continuity in service but without any back wages.

3. Aggrieved with the aforesaid, the petitioner- workman has filed Special Civil Application No. 19371 of 2015 for grant of back wages and State of Gujarat has also filed Special Civil Application No. 22099 of 2017 challenging the impugned award dated 27.08.2015.

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22099 of 2017

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Sweety Samara appearing for the petitioner- State submits that the learned Labour Court has erred in granting reinstatement to the respondent-workman. She submits that the respondent- workman had never completed 240 days of work in any given Calendar year. Learned AGP further submits that the respondent- workman was not entitled to any reinstatement in service. She further submits that the respondent-workman was working as a seasonal worker and therefore there was no continuous work of 240 days available in the establishment. She submits that the respondent -workman was employed for plantation work in the nursery. She submits that in view of requisite number of working days, not having been completed by the respondent-workman, he was not entitled for reinstatement. She submits that the impugned order is therefore bad in law and liable to be quashed and set aside.

5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Dipak Dave appearing for the respondent- workman, upon instructions, submits that the respondent - workman was serving as a Watchman with the petitioner since 1988 and his services came to be orally terminated w.e.f. 01.01.2003 without giving any reasons. He submits that the oral termination of the respondent -workman is illegal. He further submits that juniors to the respondent were retained whereas the respondent was illegally terminated. He submits that despite best efforts, the respondent- workman could not find any other employment and therefore had raised an industrial dispute in respect of the same, which came to be allowed by the learned Labour Court by the impugned order. Learned advocate for the respondent – workman further submits that the respondent - workman had clearly stated on oath that he had worked with the petitioner for more than 10 years and therefore, the respondent – workman was entitled for reinstatement of his illegal termination. He submits that the learned Labour Court has come to the conclusion that there is breach of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act in the present case and has granted reinstatement to the respondent- workman with continuity of service. Learned advocate for the respondent submits that the reasons recorded by the learned Labour Court are just and proper and no interference is called for and the present writ petition be dismissed.

6. Heard learned advocates for the parties, considered the submissions and perused the documents.

7. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the respondent – workman was working with the petitioner’s establishment. The petitioner – State had contested the reference proceedings before the learned Labour Court. AfÏdavit of one Harisingh Vir