1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-
"[A] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 27.04.2011 at Annexure-'A' to this petition passed by the Industrial Court at Ahmedabad - Respondent no. 2 herein, in Appeal [IC] No. 49 of 2009 as being illegal, arbitrary, without authority of law.
[B] Your Lordship may be pleased to direct the Respondent Company to reinstate the petitioner employee on his original post forthwith.
[C] ......."
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was working as a Jobber in Sample Printing Department of the Respondent Company. Somewhere in the year 1987, the petitioner joined the Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat Union. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent Company was pressurizing him to submit resignation from the said Union and that when he refused to do so, the respondent Company used to harass him under one pretext or the another.
3. The petitioner was served with the show cause notice dated 10.10.1987 and subsequently issued an order of suspension of participating in illegal strike. Similar such notices were also issued to 100 other employees. It appears that the respondent Company had subsequently reinstated around 40 employees. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said notice. However, the respondent Company decided to hold departmental inquiry against the petitioner. In pursuance of the said inquiry, the petitioner was terminated from the service vide order dated 26.11.1992.
4. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred T Application No. 257 of 1993 before the Labour Court, at Ahmedabad praying to reinstate him in service on his original post with continuity and full back wages. However, ultimately, the said application came to be rejected vide order dated 25.11.2009. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred Appeal [IC] No. 49 of 2009 before the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad. The said appeal came to be rejected by order dated 27.04.2011. Against the same, the present petition has been preferred.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Before the Court below, it was the case of the petitioner that the management of the Company had behaved in a discriminatory manner with him and it was alleged by the management that the petitioner had also conspired with other workers. However, the allegations raised by the petitioner were proved. Further it also does not appear that the petitioner had tendered any letter of apology to the management as was done by around 42 other workers, who were subsequently reinstated in service by the respondent Company. The allegation of discrimination made by the petitioner could not be proved. The petitioner had tried to equate his case with 42 other employees who were reinstated by the respondent Company. However, it appears from the record that that the said 42 employees were reinstated in pursuance of the individual letters of apology that were submitted by each of the 42 workers. It does not appear from the record that the petitioner had submitted any such letter of apology to the management of the respondent Company. In view of the above, the petitioner could not claim that he has been given discriminatory treatment by the management of the Company.
6. In view of the above, the Courts below considered the evidence on record in its proper perspective and recorded the conclusion that the allegations made by the petitioner of the discrimination and conspiracy were without any merits and also baseless and accordingly it confirmed the order of termination passed by the respondent Company. I am in complete agreement with the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below and hence find no reasons to entertain this petition.
7. Consequently, the petition is dismissed summarily.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/ Top