1. By way of this petition, the employer, Amreli Municipality, has challenged the award passed by Labour Court, Amreli in Reference (LCN) No.13 of 2000 dated 15th March, 2001, whereby, the respondent-workman was ordered to be reinstated in the service of the petitioner-Municipality.
2. Heard Mr.Ketan D.Shah learned advocate for the petitioner, and Mr.P.H.Pathak learned advocate for respondent, workman.
3. At the outset, it needs to be recorded that learned advocate for respondent-workman had raised a preliminary issue that present petition be treated as petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and not as petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since Labour Court, Amreli, whose order is under
this Court in the case of Bhagyodaya Co-operative Bank Ltd V/s Natvarlal K. Patel, reported in 2011(3)GLR 2706. Learned counsel for the petitioner municipality has not been able to counter this argument, therefore, considering the law pronounced by full bench of this court in case of Bhagyodaya Co-operative Bank (supra), contention raised on behalf of the workman is accepted that this petition be treated as petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is so treated.
4. The case of the petitioner-Municipality is that the respondent-workman was engaged on purely daily rated basis for few months and that since the authorities of the Government, vide circular dated 20th October, 2009 had directed that no daily wagers be appointed and continued, not only the respondent-workman but, engagement of as many as 22 such persons including the respondent- workman were discontinued with effect from 1st February, 2000. This discontinuance of the workmen was challenged by this one respondent, before labour machinery and ultimately, the impugned award, in the reference in question came to be passed, which is the subject matter of this petition. It is contended by learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner- Municipality had not committed any illegality in discontinuing the engagement of the respondent- workman and according to him, therefore, Labour Court ought not to have granted reinstatement of the respondent-workman. Learned advocate for the petitioner-Municipality, in support of his submissions, has relied on following judgments.
(i) A.Umarani V/s. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Others -(2004)7 SCC 112
(ii) Ashwani Kumar and Others V/s. State of Bihar and Others (1997) 2 SCC 1
(iii) Amreli Municipality V/s. Gujarat Pradesh Municipal Employees Union, 2004 (2) GLH 692
5. On behalf of the respondent-workman, it is contended by learned advocate Mr.Pathak, that on the basis of the material on record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the termination was illegal and the workman was entitled to reinstatement and since the Labour Court has, on over all evaluation of facts and material on record, directed reinstatement, this Court may not interfere with the same. Learned advocate Mr.Pathak also contended that no oral or documentary evidences were produced before the Labour Court and therefore, the say of the petitioner-Municipality, may not be taken into consideration. Learned advocate for the respondent-workman, in support of his submissions, has relied on following judgments:
(I) Anoop Sharma V/s. Executive Engineers, Public Health Division No.1, Panipat (Haryana) (2010) 5 SCC 497
(II) Harjinder Singh V/s. Punjab State Warehousing Corp. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 192
(III) Devinder Singh V/s. Municipal Council, Sanaur(2011) 6 SCC 584
(IV) Gujarat Mineral Development Corp. V/s. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Others 1986(1) GLR 410
(V) Unreported decision of this court in SCA No:11028 of 2001
6. Taking into consideration the submissions of both the sides and material on record, I find that, before the Labour Court, the workman had examined himself and his oral evidence is recorded at Exh.9. The said aspect is reflected in para-8 of the impugned award of the Labour Court. It is on record that in his deposition, the workman had stated certain facts. It is also recorded that the workman was cross-examined on behalf of Municipality and in the cross- examination, the workman had, inter-alia, stated the facts, which are as under:-
(i) The workman had not made any application to get the service
(ii) The name of the workman was not sponsored by any employment exchange and there was no selection of the workman (iii)No interview was taken by any authority before the workman started working with the Municipality (iv)The workman had not got any appointment order from the Chief Officer of the Municipality
7. On the face of the above evidence on record, that too coming as the evidence of the workman himself, in my view, reinstatement could not have been awarded by the Labour Court and the challenge to such award passed by the Labour Court needs to be accepted by this Court in this petition. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the proposition of law as enunciated in the judgments cited by learned advocate for the respondent-workman. However, close reading of these judgments would show that, on the face of the finding of fact, as recorded herein above, none of these judgments will be of any help to the respondent-workman.
8. Considering the totality of the facts, in my view, the impugned award of the Labour Court, ordering reinstatement of the respondent workman, is not legal and can not be sustained and the same is quashed and set aside.
9. The petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.
(PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) (ashish)