Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6394/2008 4/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6394 of 2008
=========================================================
THE
RANGE FOREST OFFICER - Petitioner(s)
Versus
RABARI
TEJABHAI JIVANBHAI - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KRUNAL PANDYA AGP for Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR TR MISHRA for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR UT
MISHRA for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 17/06/2008
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned AGP Mr. Pandya on behalf of petitioner, learned advocate Mr.
Mishra appearing for respondent.
In
this petition, petitioner has challenged as per prayer made in para
7(a), to set aside ex parte order dated 10/1/2007 passed in
reference no. 2185/1994 and to remand back the case to learned
Labour Court, so, petitioner can get opportunity of being heard and
raised its contention.
It
is necessary to note lethargic approach of the Range Forest Officer.
In this petition, respondent workman was working as a Watchman with
petitioner for more than one year and receiving salary of Rs. 800/-
per month. His service was terminated on 10/3/1993, against which,
he immediately raised industrial dispute, which referred for
adjudication on 27/9/1994. The reference no. 2185/1994 decided in
the absence of petitioner on 1/12/2001 granted reinstatement with
full back wages of interim period with the cost of Rs. 500/-.
The
workman was examined before Labour Court and notice of hearing was
served to petitioner, but none appearing on behalf of petitioner
before Labour Court. Therefore, Labour Court has decided ex parte
against petitioner.
Thereafter,
one MCA no. 212/2003 filed by petitioner along with delay condoned
application, wherein, also applicant means present petitioner
remained absent and ultimately, that application was dismissed in
default because of absence of petitioner on 8/4/2004. Meaning
thereby that, ex parte award is passed because petitioner remained
absent and application to set aside ex parte award, which was filed
by petitioner also dismissed because of absence of petitioner on
8/4/2004.
Thereafter,
again MCA no. 163/2004 was filed by petitioner, which ultimately
allowed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad on 28/11/2005 on condition to
pay Rs. 10,000/- to respondent workman and matter was fixed for
hearing on 9/1/2006, but Rs. 10,000/- also not paid to respondent
workman by petitioner.
Therefore,
workman has approached to Labour Court, Ahmedabad that according to
the condition incorporated in order, Rs. 10,000/- is not paid to
respondent workman and petitioner is also remained absent and not
complied condition as per order passed by Labour Court. Therefore,
Labour Court, Ahmedabad has confirmed earlier order of ex parte
award by order dated 10/1/2007.
Learned
AGP Mr. Pandya appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that
service of the respondent was terminated because of misconduct
committed by him and he has misbehaved with officer, but looking to
page 12, no departmental inquiry was initiated against respondent
before terminating service of respondent.
The
service of respondent workman was terminated because of misconduct
committed by him but no opportunity was given to workman by
petitioner before passing order of termination against him.
Therefore, on both ground, the order passed by petitioner is rightly
set aside by Labour Court, Ahmedabad. The Range Forest Officer have
right to terminate the service of workman and when workman has
challenged termination, the Range Forest Officer remained
continuously absent in all proceeding, not only that but condition
incorporated in order allowing the application filed by petitioner
and directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to respondent workman was also not
complied by petitioner.
Therefore,
according to my opinion, Labour Court has rightly passed an order
and has not committed any error while passing aforesaid order. The
respondent, who remained out of job since 10/3/1993, more than
fifteen years have passed, even though, he has not been reinstated
in service and not a single rupee paid by petitioner to respondent.
Now, to entertain petition filed by petitioner Range Forest Officer,
then it amounts to giving cause for another round of litigation
against poor workman, who is without job since more than 15 years.
Therefore,
according to my opinion, the view taken by the Labour Court is
perfectly justified and for that, Labour Court has not committed any
error, which would require interference by this Court while
exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Hence,
there is no substance in the present petition. Accordingly, present
petition is dismissed.
(H.K.RATHOD,
J)
asma
Top