Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6357/2008 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6357 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
PARASHOTTAM
ASHABHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, NARMADA YOJNA - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
AS ASTHAVADI for Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR NIRZAR S DESAI for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 29/09/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
Rule.
Mr.Desai waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.1. Rule
is fixed forthwith at the request of learned counsels for the
parties.
Petitioner-workman
has preferred this petition under Art.226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the order dated 3-9-2007 passed by
the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Nadiad, rejecting his reference
being Reference (LCA) No.59 of 2001 (Old No.63 of 1993) on various
grounds mentioned thereunder.
Mr.A.S.Asthavadi,
learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, contended that the
Labour Court has recorded finding contrary to the evidence on record
so far as completion of 240 days in the preceding year is concerned.
He submitted that the document at exh.27 was document produced by
the employer, respondent herein above,and even a glance at the
document shows that the workman has completed 240 days in the
preceding year. Copy of the said document is heavily relied upon by
Mr.Asthavadi and he submitted that in view of this, let there be
remand the matter to the learned Labour Court for recording its
finding on this aspect.
Mr.Desai,
learned advocate appearing for the respondent, candidly admitted
that this is a document produced by the present respondent-employer
before the Labour Court as it is mentioned on internal page No.4 of
the award and on Page-9 and, therefore, the same is required to be
taken into consideration. Mr.Desai, however, could not point out
from this document as to how the Labour Court has come to the
conclusion that 240 days are not completed. He submitted that the
Labour Court has actually decided the matter against the petitioner
on other grounds also. However, he submitted that the petitioner’s
engagement with other employer after his termination, has not been
rightly believed by the concerned Court. Mr. Desai for the
respondent could not advance any other submission in support of the
award impugned.
This
Court has gone through the award. The matter deserves to be remanded
back to the concerned Court only on the aspect of its finding with
regard to non-completion of 240 days. It was not open for the Court
to record its finding contrary to the document adduced by the
employer which on the face of it, indicates that the workman did
complete more than 240 days in the preceding year of his
termination. Other issues are not commented upon as no such
submissions are canvassed in those behalf. Suffice it to say that
the matter deserves to be remanded back. The award impugned is
quashed and set aside only on this aspect with a liberty to both the
sides to adduce evidence available in support of their case in
respect of all the issues. It would be open to both the parties to
take up all the contentions including that of maintainability. The
Labour Court shall decide the reference preferably within six months
from the date of receipt of writ by this Court.
Rule
is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
J.)
vijay*
Top