AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Judgment and award dated 06.09.2006 rendered by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) No.419 of 1999 awarding 25% of the backwages and other incidental benefits with effect from 30.11.1999 as also the continuity of service as also reinstatement is sought to be assailed in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
On consideration of the rival contentions as also the record more particularly the judgment and award, this Court finds a very categorical finding of fact that the person junior to the petitioner was retained in service and also that after his termination the person named by the workman came to be appointed and thus there was violation of Section 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the I.D. Act', for short). The assertion by the workman to the aforesaid effect was not even challenged by the petitioner in his cross examination. In fact the seniority list perused by the Labour Court fortified the aforementioned finding.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out how the said finding is perverse, illegal or based on irrelevant consideration or relevant material is ignored etc. for the purpose of exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the raising of the dispute being delayed by 11 months, the Labour Court ought not to have entertained the dispute. This may hold true so far as breach of Section 25F is concerned. However, in the event of breach of Section 25H, the relevant date would be the employment of the substitute of the workman in breach of the said provision.
While the workman pleaded in his testimony as regards employment of such substitute although without mentioning the date, the petitioner did not justify the plea as to delay by citing relevant date of appointment of substitute of the workman under Section 25H. Thus, there is no material on record to show that the reference was delayed. Even otherwise, the workman has been given only 25% of the backwages and that should be sufficient to compensate the petitioner against the delayed reference if at all it was delayed, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The petition fails and is dismissed.