1. The petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court, Ahmedabad dated 01.07.2003 in reference (LCA) No. 2225/91 on the ground that the Labour Court has wrongly rejected the reference vide its impugned order.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was working with the respondent no. 2 office as a sweeper for around 15 years. The respondent no. 2 orally terminated the service of the petitioner on 27.08.1990. The petitioner therefore filed Reference (LCA) No. 2225/91 before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad. The Labour Court after hearing the parties rejected the reference. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is preferred.
3. Ms Desai, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Labour Court ought to have appreciated the fact that the petitioner worker did give deposition to the effect that she had been working prior to oral termination for a period of about 15 years and that there was a witness who had deposed in favour of the petitioner. She submitted that the respondent no. 2 had issued a curfew pass to the petitioner wherein the name and timings with regard to the petitioner are mentioned.
4. This Court is unable to accept this submission of Ms Desai. The Labour Court has clearly observed that no evidence at all has been produced in support of the contention that the petitioner was serving in any capacity with the present respondent. No identity card, attendance card or any kind of pass was produced by the petitioner. The say of the petitioner is that she was engaged in the office of respondent no. 2 for a period of around 15 years. The Labour Court has rightly not believed the say of the petitioner as it is unbelievable that a person serving in the respondent no. 2 office will have no evidence to substantiate his or her claim.
5. In fact a witness namely Balsinh Bahadursinh that the presence of workers are marked in the muster roll of the sweepers but the same was not produced at the relevant point of time. The curfew pass which is sought to be relied upon by the petitioner is issued for some ‘Babliben’ which is not the name of the petitioner. The Labour Court has also observed that the claim of the present petitioner could not be sustained by way of any documentary evidence and therefore the Labour Court has rightly rejected the reference.
6. This Court is of the view that the Labour Court order is absolutely just and proper and no interference is called for. The petition therefore deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) DIVYA