Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/13580/2009 2/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13580 of 2009
=========================================================
ABHRAM
ISABHAI BUCHAD & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
PORT
OFFICER & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
TR MISHRA for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 19/01/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1). Heard
learned advocate for the parties, the petitioners (original workmen)
in the reference numbers mentioned in the order impugned have
approached this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
challenging the order dated 22.12.2008 passed by the Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Rajkot. In that group of references, wherein
consolidated order was passed rejecting the said references,the
petitioners-workmen had to raise Industrial Dispute in the year 1990.
Their services came to be terminated without following due procedure
of law. The petitioners, as per their say in the statement of
claims, worked with the respondent since 1978
to 1990 and in the year 1990 without following due procedure of law,
their services were terminated, and after the termination of
services, the respondent employed fresh hands for doing the same job.
Thus, there is a breach of Section 25 (f) (g) and (h). The
competent authority referred the matter for adjudication wherein they
were numbered as reference numbers mentioned in the impugned order.
The respondent appeared and filed written statement contesting
seriously the claim with regard to continues service.
2). The
Court, after recording its findings with regard to workmen’s
inability to establish their case for having worked 240 days and
having failed in establishing that the fresh hands were employed,
rejected application of the petitioners vide order impugned dated
22.12.2008.
3). Shri
Mishra, learned advocate for the workmen contended that there are all
documents available with the workmen though they could not be
produced at the relevant time. If the matter is remanded back, then
the workmen shall get a chance to establish their case and thus ends
of justice would be served.
4). Ms.Sejal
K. Mandavia, learned advocate appearing for the respondent submitted
that the documentary evidence whatever available were produced by
both the sides and after perusing those documents, the Court came to
the conclusion that the workmen failed in establishing their case and
hence, now the remand would be of no avail to anyone and, she
submitted that the matter be dismissed.
This
Court has perused the award impugned. It is to be noted that there is
a clear finding recorded by the Court in the order impugned that the
workmen though claimed to have worked from 1978 up to 1990, they
failed in establishing that they were working continuously. The
workmen also failed in challenging the version of the employer in the
written statement. The workmen also did not call upon the employer to
produce other documentary evidences which according to workmen might
be in possession of the employer. When there is a clear finding
with regard to workmen’s inability to establish their failure in
proving their case with regard to breach of Section 25 (f), (g) and
(h), this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
would not go beyond that findings and accept the submissions of the
learned counsel for the workmen for giving them an opportunity by way
of remand for proving their case.
5).In
view of this, the petition fails and is rejected as having no merits.
Notice discharged. There shall be no orders as to costs.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,J.)
Vahid
Top