Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6756/2010 2/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6756 of 2010
=========================================================
RATANBEN
MUDHALBHAI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MUKESH H RATHOD for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 17/06/2010
ORAL
ORDER
By
way of present petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for
quashing and setting aside the impugned award dated 03rd
January 2009 passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar, in Reference
(LCS) No.99 of 1995 below Exh.99 at Annexure-A and directing the
respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner on his original post
with continuity of service along with full back wages for the
intervening period with all the consequential benefits.
It
is the case of the petitioner that since the year 1979-1980 the
petitioner was working as a daily wager with the respondents and the
petitioner had put continuous service for more than 240 days in each
year of his service tenure and the petitioner was getting wages as
per the Minimum Wages Act on monthly basis. It is further the case
of the petitioner that the service of the petitioner came to be
orally terminated without following the mandatory due procedure of
law contemplated under Section 25(F), (G) and (H) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) as well as
without following the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, the
petitioner has raised an industrial dispute and it was referred to
the Labour Court, Surendranagar being Reference (LCS) No.99 of 1995
for adjudication, wherein the petitioner has filed his statement of
claim, documentary evidence as well as oral deposition and the
respondents also filed their written statement and oral evidence and
the Labour Court did not consider the oral evidence of the
petitioner for non-employment and passed the judgment and award
dated 03rd January 2009 rejecting the Reference of the
petitioner. Hence, the present petition.
Having
considered the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the
petitioner as well as averments made in the petition and the
documentary evidence on record, it transpires that the respondent
herein had vide an RPAD letter dated 27th April 1995
asked for certain information/ documents from the petitioner as to
the name of road on which road she was discharging her duty; which
road clerk was maintaining register of her attendance; who was
giving her salary; the names of other labourers who were working
with her; whether at present she has been working there or not and
called upon her to produce the salary slip or muster roll, etc. It
is pertinent to note that no information as aforesaid has been
provided by the petitioner to the respondent. The said letter
addressed by the respondent is produced on record of the Reference.
It is required to be noted that in the written statement, it has
been categorically stated by the respondent that the petitioner has
not worked with their institution and, therefore, there is no
question of terminating her or reinstating her in service with
backwages.
Further,
it is no where on record that the petitioner has prayed for
obtaining any documents from the respondent-authority and no
evidence is produced on record by the petitioner to show that she
was working with the respondent-authority. Only oral statement has
been made that she was working with the respondent-authority. It is
pertinent to note that the Labour Court after taking into
consideration the pros and cons of the matter as well as taking into
consideration the decision of the Apex Court in the case of R.M.
Yelati v. Assistant Executive Engineer, reported in (2006) 1 SCC
106, has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has
failed to prove that the petitioner has worked with the
respondent-authority as well as her say that she has worked for 240
day during the year prior to her termination from service and
thereby, rejected the Reference.
In
view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as in
light of the aforesaid decision, I am of the opinion that the Labour
Court has assigned cogent and convincing reasons for rejecting the
Reference. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the finding
arrived at by the Labour Court. The judgment and award passed by the
Labour Court is just and proper and the same is required to be
confirmed.
For
the foregoing reasons, the present petition fails and is,
accordingly, dismissed summarily.
(K.S.
Jhaveri, J)
Aakar
Top