1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned award dated 28.02.2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Anand in Reference Case [L.C.A.] No. 280/1998, whereby the said reference was rejected.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was serving as a Rojamdar in the Anklav Section in the office of respondent no. 1. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no. 1 orally terminated the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 07.11.1995 without following any due process of law. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara, being Reference Case No. 64/1986, re-numbered as Reference Case No. 746/1986, which came to be partly allowed vide award dated 23.07.1999. Against the said order, respondent no. 1 preferred writ petition before this Court, whereby the said matter was remanded to the Industrial Tribunal for consideration afresh. Thereafter, the Industrial Tribunal vide award dated 10.03.2006 partly allowed the Reference and directed respondent no. 1 to extend the benefits of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It is the case of the petitioner that against the termination order and since Reference no. 64/1986 was pending adjudication, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which, ultimately, culminated into a reference before the Court below. In the said Reference, respondent no. 1 filed the written statement denying all the allegations. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence on record, rejected the said reference. Hence, this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent department terminated the services of the petitioner in complete breach of provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. However, the Court below failed to appreciate the said aspect of the case and rejected the reference. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decision of of this Court in the case of Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Raghavji Jakhar Ahir [2003] 2 GHJ 342.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It was the case of the petitioner workman before the Court below that the respondent department had orally terminated his services on 07.11.1995. However, the Court below found the story put forward by the petitioner to be false mainly on the basis that the document Exhibit-14 which was a attendance sheet maintained by the respondent department. On appreciation of the said document, the Court below found that the petitioner workman had not rendered any services with the respondent department during the period 06.11.1994 to 07.11.1995. In other words, it was found that the petitioner had not rendered any single day of service much less requisite days of service i.e. 240 days which would lead to breach of provisions of Section 25(b) of the I.D. Act. The petitioner had also not produced salary slip or the attendance sheet, in fact, he had not pressed the production application Exhibit-7, which was initially filed by him. Thus, the Court below found that there was no breach of the relevant provisions of the I.D. Act at the hand of the respondent department. Therefore, the story put forward by the petitioner workman that he was terminated from the service on 17.11.1995 was found to be false. In fact it has come on record that he had voluntarily abandoned the services somewhere in February, 1993.
5. So far as the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the same will not apply to the case on hand since in that case, the workman had completed 240 days of continuous service. In this case, it has come on record that in the so called preceding year the petitioner had not worked even a single day which is established from the attendance sheet Exhibit-14. Hence, the said decision relied upon by the petitioner will not come to his rescue.
6. Considering the facts of the case and the evidence on record, The Court below has rightly dismissed the reference of the petitioner. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given and findings arrived by the Court below and find no reasons to interfere with the same.
7. Consequently the petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/