Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

Appearance vs Bahadursinh Natubha Gohil)

High Court Of Gujarat|07 January, 2012

JUDGMENT / ORDER

(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. We have heard learned counsel Mr.Premal R. Joshi for the appellant and Mr. U.T.Mishra for the respondent.
2. Appeal against the similar award has been dismissed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.838 of 2011 (in the case of Dhoraji Municipality Vs. Bahadursinh Natubha Gohil), vide order dated 14.6.2011.
3. The respondent was working as daily wager. After considering the material on record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled for reinstatement in service, but without any back wages. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment dated 25.1.2011 has upheld the view taken by the Labour Court. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the impugned judgment are extracted below:-
"2 The First Party Employer - Municipality in Reference (LCR) No. 268 of 1996 from the Labour Court, Rajkot has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order and award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rajkot on 25.8.2010, whereunder, the Court has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman without any back wages but awarded Rs.2000/- by way of costs.
3. The workman had to raise the industrial dispute as despite his long service as daily wager at the daily wage of Rs.44-40, his services came to be terminated unceremoniously from 1.7.1996. While effecting the termination of his service, the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) were not followed. The dispute was referred to the competent Court, wherein, it was marked as Reference (LCR) No. 268 of 1996. The workman filed statement of claim contending interalia that not only there was breach of Section 25F but there was also a breach of Sections 25G and 25H of the Act as juniors are continued and new persons are employed. Reference was resisted by filing written statement. The Labour Court has discussed elaborately the evidences in internal page no. 7 of the award and running page no.18 of the petition, that the workman produced documentary evidences from exh 47 to 49. These documentary evidences were obtained by the workman under Right to Information Act and as per those documentary evidences, it was clearly established that workman completed 240 days in a preceding year of his termination. Beside this, the Labour Court has also observed that at exh. 71, the management witness was examined and he deposed that workman had continuously served from the date of his entry till his termination and the witness of the management also stated that the documents, which have been supplied by the Management Worker Act. When there was a clear finding with regard to breach of Section 25F of the Act, appropriate order of reinstatement in given facts and circumstances was not uncalled for. The workman has also given evidence indicating that there was a breach of section 25G and 25H of the Act. Thus, in view of the over all facts and circumstances, this Court has come to the conclusion that termination of the workman was untenable in law and hence he was ordered to be reinstated without any back wages. This court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India may not interfere with the same as the finding of the Labour Court in reinstating the workman cannot be said to be so perverse so as to call for any interference. The petition being bereft of merits, deserves rejection and is rejected accordingly. Notice discharged. No costs."
4. From the aforesaid discussion, it appears that the appellant did not produce any documentary evidence to establish its case before the Labour Court or to contradict the case of the respondent.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any illegality either in the impguned order of the learned Single Judge or in the award of the Labour Court. This Appeal fails and is dismissed.
6. Since the main Appeal is dismissed, no orders are required to be passed on the Civil Application and it stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(V.M.
SAHAI, J.) Sd/-
(G.B.
SHAH, J.) omkar Top
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Appearance vs Bahadursinh Natubha Gohil)

Court

High Court Of Gujarat

JudgmentDate
07 January, 2012