Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/2028/2010 1/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 2028 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5836 of 1999
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 9797 of 2010
===============================================
MANAGER,
FEDERATION OF COOPERATIVE STORES LIMITED - Appellant(s)
Versus
RITABEN
WD/O ANILKUMAR J SHAH - Respondent(s)
===============================================
Appearance
:
MR RD DAVE for Appellant(s) :
1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2,1.2.3
===============================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
Date
: 06/09/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)
1. This
Letters Patent Appeal arises out of an order passed on 15th
July, 2010, in Special Civil Application No.5836 of 1999. The said
petition was preferred by the appellant to challenge an award passed
by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Nadiad in Reference (LCN) No.17
of 1990 on 26th May, 1999, whereby the Labour Court
directed the petitioner to pay backwages from the date of
retrenchment i.e. 8.8.1989 till the respondent obtained Sanad as an
advocate in the year 1994.
2.
The respondent was an employee of the appellant working as a Clerk.
He came to be retrenched from service and therefore he raised an
industrial dispute and reference was made to the Labour Court, which
was registered as Reference (LCN) No.17 of 1990 before Labour Court,
Nadiad.
3.
Respondent on the other hand continued his study and obtained a
Sanad somewhere in 1994. The Labour Court, after considering the
evidence led before it, came to conclusion that the appellant has not
been able to show that provision contained in Section 25-G of the
Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as I.D.Act )
have been properly followed and therefore passed the impugned order.
4.
The case of the appellant is that the Labour Court erred in
appreciating the evidence. The evidence of the respondent before the
Labour Court is clear and there was no need to look for seniority
list, which error the Labour Court has committed. The evidence of the
respondent itself is clear to show that all his juniors were
retrenched before his retrenchment and, therefore, the appeal may be
entertained.
5.
Learned advocate Mr.Dave has reiterated the grounds stated in
the appeal.
6.
The appellant has also produced the record of the Labour Court.
However, going through the record, we find that seniority list of
the employees of the federation is not forming part of record of the
Labour Court. What is produced is only a list of employees working
with the appellant in the month of August 1989. Unless seniority
list is produced and specific evidence is brought on record either
through admission of the appellant or by adducing its own evidence by
the appellant to show that juniors to the respondent were retrenched
first or prior to the respondent, the Labour Court could not have
come to conclusion that provision contained under Section 25-G of the
I.D.Act were followed. While appreciating the petition, again a list
of employees for the month of August 1989 is produced but not
seniority list.
7.
In our opinion, neither the Labour Court nor the learned Single
Judge can be said to have committed any error in not accepting the
version of the appellant that the requirements of Section 25-G of
the I.D.Act were properly complied with. If those requirements are
not complied with, the Labour Court was justified in passing the
impugned award and the learned Single Judge was also justified in
passing the orders impugned in the appeal. We do not find any merits
in the appeal. The appeal must fail and stands dismissed.
8.
In light of dismissal of the main appeal, Civil Application
No.9797 of 2010 stands dismissed.
(
A.L. Dave, J. ) ( Bankim N. Mehta, J. )
syed/
Top