1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? Nos. 1 to 5 No.
-------------------------------------------------------------- GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD Versus I. J. TRIVEDI
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
SPL.C.A.NO 4145 OF 1996. MR TUSHAR MEHTA for Petitioner MR NR SHAHANI for Respondent.
SPL.C.A.NO.2641 OF 1997. MR NR SHAHANI for petitioner. MR TUSHAR MEHTA for Respondent.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5820 OF 1997 MR NR SHAHANI for Applicant. MR.RUSHAR MEHTA for Opponent.
------------------------------------------------
The aforesaid Special Civil Applications came up before me along with Civil Application No. 5820 of 1997. In the facts and circumstances of the case I consider it appropriate to decide these matters finally today.
These two Special Civil Applications are directed against the award dated 8.1.1996 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 1174 of 1987. Special Civil Application No. 4145 of 1996 has been filed by Gujarat Electricity Board whereas Special Civil Application No. 2641 of 1997 has been filed by the workman. Gujarat Electricity Board is aggrieved against the relief of reinstatement and the workman is aggrieved against the denial of continuity of service and backwages.
The workman represented through Mr.Shahani was employed with Gujarat Electricity Board as Clerk. The parties were at dispute as to whether the workman had actually abandoned the job by tendering his resignation and not reporting on duty or as to whether the workman had been orally terminated. The dispute raised by the workman was referred to the Labour Court, Ahmedabad and the Labour Court, Ahmedabad vide impugned award dated 8.1.1996 has granted relief of reinstatement to the workman without continuity of service and without backwages. The case of the Gujarat Electricity Board is that the workman had stopped reporting on duty from 17.1.1984. The Board had sent letter dated 2.3.1984 but the workman did not file any reply nor he did send any certificate for being sick. The Board thereafter sent letters dated 14.6.1984, 19.7.1984, 28.8.1984 and 22.10.1984 but the workman did not report for duty. The workman then submitted his resignation on 30.11.1984 which was addressed to Deputy Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Nardipur saying that he was resigning because of harassment. The letter dated 18.12.1984 was sent calling upon him to report for duty, the workman yet did not report and thereafter on 31.12.1985 the resignation was accepted and an office order to that effect was passed. The order of acceptance of resignation has been placed on record in Special Civil Application No. 2641 if 1997 as Annexure 'C'. Gujarat Electricity Board has come with the categorical case that the services of the petitioner were never terminated and that in fact the workman had resigned on 30.11.1984 and his resignation was accepted on 31.12.1985. The workman had examined himself only before the Labour Court whereas Gujarat Electricity Board examined Dahyabhai Hirabhai Solanki. The Labour Court after considering the pleadings and with material evidence of both the sides and the submissions which were raised on behalf of the respective counsel came to the conclusion that the workman had failed to prove all his pleadings by leading either oral evidence or producing any documentary evidence and that he had failed to prove his own pleading regarding oral termination, victimization, threats and exploitation. The Labour Court also found that the Board had sent several letters to the workman for reporting on duty but the workman failed to report on duty inspite of repeated letters. The Labour Court has also categorically held in para 12 that it was proved that the workman had not come before the Court with clean hands and had indulged into suppression of material facts while filing statement of claim. The Labour Court had also considered the plea of the workman that resignation was accepted too late in the day and has also observed that plausible explanation has been given by the Board for delay in acceptance of the letter of resignation which was submitted at Nardipur and then it was submitted to the Executive Engineer and the Labour Court has also observed that if the workman was interested in doing his duties he should have reported for his duties when letters at exhibits 17 to 22 were written to him. The Labour Court has also recorded that the workman did not report for duty inspite of several letters by the Board speaks volumes regarding his credibility and instead of reporting for duties he had chosen to knock the doors of the Court for getting his job back. Having held so, in the operative part the Labour Court has granted relief of reinstatement without continuity of service and without backwages.
One fails to understand how the Labour Court could grant relief of reinstatement in the light of its findings and reasons. The operative part of the order passed by the Labour Court is not at all compatible with its findings and reasons in the earlier part of the award. It is established on record that the workman failed to report on duty and further that he had tendered resignation on 30.11.1984 which was accepted on 31.12.1985 and in this view of the matter there is no question of granting relief of reinstatement and there is no reason to find any legitimate grievance in favour of the workman so as to even grant relief of reinstatement in 1996 when the resignation had been accepted way back in 1985. The finding of fact with regard to the submissions and acceptance of the resignation had already become a fait accompli and there was nothing to suggest that it was a case of oral termination and the case of the Gujarat Electricity Board that the workman had abandoned the job is fully established.
Mr.Shahani pointed out that the resignation letter dated 3.11.1984 was accepted on 31.12.1985 and in the letter of acceptance of the resignation it has been mentioned that on 31.12.1985 the resignation is accepted with effect from 30.11.1984. The resignation could not be accepted retrospectively and therefore the acceptance of the resignation itself is bad. Sofar as the legal contention goes Mr.Shahani is right in submitting that resignation cannot be granted retrospectively, but in the facts of this case, it is not possible to grant any relief to the workman even if this contention is accepted for the simple reason that the workman never reported for duty despite repeated letters and therefore the relief granting wages for the periode 30.11.1984 to 31.12.1985 also cannot be granted to him on the principle of 'no work no pay' and also keeping in view the fact that this period from 30.11.1984 to 31.12.1985, the workman was not under any forced unemployment. The contention is therefore futile in the facts and circumstances of the case.
In this view of the matter, the Special Civil Application filed by Gujarat Electricity Board against the impugned award dated 8.1.1996 deserves to be allowed and the Special Civil Application filed by the workman deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly the order dated 8.1.1996 passed by the Labour Court granting relief of reinstatement to the workman is hereby quashed and set aside and as such there is no question of considering the prayer of the workman for continuity of service and to grant backwages as has been made in Special Civil Application No. 2641 of 1997.
Special Civil Application No. 4145 of 1996 is therefore allowed and the Rule is made absolute whereas Special Civil Application No. 2641 of 1997 is hereby dismissed and the Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5820 OF 1997.
This Civil Application was moved by the respondent workman in Special Civil Application No. 4145 of 1996. During the pendency of the Special Civil Application relief under section 17B of the I.D.Act was sought. The interim order was passed in Special Civil Application No.4145 of 1996 on 9.9.1996. While issuing Rule the order of interim relief was confirmed later on after hearing both the sides. After confirmation of the stay order, this Civil Application under section 17B had been filed. Now the main Special Civil Application itself has been decided, there is no question of considering the prayer for 17B of the I.D.Act as the stay order has also come to an end allowing the Special Civil Application. The Civil Application is therefore dismissed accordingly.
-----
m.m.bhatt.