Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10373/2008 6/ 6 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10373 of 2008
=========================================================
BHAVESH
BHAILAL SONI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (S.T. NIGAM) - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PM LAKHANI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MRS RP LAKHANI for Petitioner: 1,
None for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 13/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
this petition, the petitioner, son of deceased employee has
challenged an Award dated 5.3.2004, whereby the Labour Court has
rejected the Reference preferred by the employee against the action
of the respondent – Corporation of terminating his service.
2. From
the award and from the submission on behalf of the petitioner, it
appears that the petitioner’s father i.e. the employee of the
respondent – Corporation, died on 18.5.2000 during the pendency of
the proceedings before the Labour Court and that therefore, he was
joined as party to the Reference proceedings.
3. The
petitioner has annexed only a copy of the Award and a copy of the
statement of claim and no other document is produced on the record of
this petition. Therefore, this Court has to consider and decide this
petition only on the basis of the said material.
4. Upon
perusal of the Award, it transpires that the father of the petitioner
i.e. deceased employee was terminated by the respondent – Corporation
with effect from 14.9.1996. Before terminating the petitioner’s
father from service, the respondent Corporation had issued a
charge-sheet and pursuant to the said charge-sheet, departmental
inquiry was conducted and upon conclusion of the departmental
inquiry, the petitioner’s father was terminated.
5. Against
the said termination in September, 1996, the order of Reference was
made on 21.4.1998 i.e. after period of about 2 years. The said order
of Reference culminated into Reference (LCG) No.154 of 1998. In
response to the statement of claim filed by the employee, the
respondent Corporation filed its written statement and contested the
Reference proceedings. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court
came to the conclusion that the employee failed to establish that the
inquiry against him was conducted improperly and in violation of
principles of natural justice. The Labour Court has also held that
the inquiry conducted against the employee was legal and proper.
Ultimately, after considering the material available on record and
after hearing the parties, the Labour Court rejected the Reference.
Aggrieved by the said Award, son of the employee is before this
Court.
6. Mr.
P.M. Lakhani, learned advocate appears for the petitioner. He
submitted that the Labour Court has shifted the burden of proof on
the employee and has failed to appreciate the case of the petitioner
as made out in the statement of claim and has erred in law in holding
that the departmental inquiry was not illegal but was legal and
proper. He submitted that in view of the error committed by the
Labour Court, petition deserves to be allowed.
7. As
mentioned hereinabove, the Reference regarding the dispute raised by
respondent was made after lapse of almost 2 years from the date of
his alleged termination, which wold go to show that for almost two
years after his alleged termination, the said employee was passive
and did not raise any dispute and now this petition is preferred
after almost 4 years since the Award came to be passed in March,
2004. The petition, for this reason alone, does not deserve to be
entertained. It is pertinent to note that the Reference was made in
April, 1998 and the concerned employee died in May, 2000 i.e. within
period of 2 years after the reference, the employee died and then the
petitioner was impleaded as party to the Reference proceedings and
yet he has approached this Court against the Award after lapse of
almost 4 years.
8. The
Labour Court has recorded the findings of fact that inquiry was
legal and proper. The Labour Court has also recorded finding of the
fact that the employee was in habit in committing similar misconduct
in past also. Besides the said findings the Labour Court has after
considering the material available on record of the Reference, also
come to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the
petitioner was proved and that the petitioner had failed to establish
that finding or conclusion regarding misconduct, are incorrect and/or
he did not commit the misconduct of which the charge was levelled
against him.
9. Thus,
after examining the material on record and upon hearing the parties,
the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the
employee/petitioner failed to establish that the action of the
respondent – Corporation was illegal and unjustified. The Labour
Court did not find any reason to interfere with the order passed
passed by the Corporation and/or to exercise discretion under Section
11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
10. On
perusal of the impugned Award and upon hearing Mr. Lakhani, learned
advocate for the petitioner, this Court does not find any strong or
convincing reason to interfere with the finding of the fact recorded
by the Labour Court and/or to hold that the Labour Court has
committed any error of jurisdiction or law. It is not possible to
hold, upon examining the discussion in the impugned Award that
finding recorded by the Labour Court are contrary to the evidence on
record or perverse. Hence, no ground for interfering with the Award
is made out. The petition therefore, fails and the same is
accordingly rejected. The petitioner to bear his costs.
(K.M.THAKER,
J.)
ynvyas
Top