Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3037/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3037 of 2010
=========================================================
K
MURUGAN - Petitioner(s)
Versus
CREATIVE
OUTWEAR - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR.HIREN
M MODI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 22/06/2010
ORAL
ORDER
By
way of present petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for
quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and award rendered
on 23rd October 2008 by the Labour Court, Valsad, in
Reference (LCV) No.480 of 2001 and directing the respondent to
reinstate the petitioner on his original post along with continuity
of service and with full backwages along with all consequential
benefits.
It
is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was working on the
post of cutting master as a permanent employee of the respondent
since 12th July 1995. The petitioner had taken leave
from 17th August 2000 to 09th September 2000
for attending a marriage ceremony, which was granted to the
petitioner. However, the petitioner could not come in time and could
resume duty four days late and, therefore, the service of the
petitioner was terminated by the respondent-authority without
following due procedure of law. Being aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner preferred Reference (LCV) No.480 of 2001, which
ultimately came to be rejected by the Labour Court, Valsad.
It
is further the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner has
performed his duty in Rachna Udhyog and all the documents to that
effect have been produced on record, the Labour Court has failed to
appreciate the said aspect. The said Rachna Udhyog is run by the
respondent herein. The Labour Court has erred in appreciating the
fact that the respondent and Rachna Udhyog are different entities.
Even on the identity card of Rachna Udhyog, the name of the
respondent is reflected. However, the Labour Court has failed to
appreciate all these aspects and rendered the impugned judgment and
award. Hence, the present petition.
Having
considered the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the
petitioner, the averments made in the petition as well as the
documentary evidence produced on record, it transpires that the
Rachna Udhyog and the respondent are different entities and the said
aspect is borne out from the cross-examination of the respondent.
However, the said aspect has not been controverted by the
petitioner. Looking to the cross-examination of the respondent as
well as evidence on record, it is crystal clear that the petitioner
was working with the respondent. It is required to be noted that
though the respondent had taken defence in the written statement
that the petitioner has not worked with it but with Rachna Udhyog,
the petitioner has failed to make Rachna Udhyog as party to the said
Reference. Thus, no relation of master and servant is established
between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner has
thoroughly failed to establish his case before the Labour Court and
even before this Court.
In
view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the
reasons assigned by the Labour Court, I am of the opinion that the
view taken by the Labour Court is just and proper. The Labour Court
has assigned cogent and convincing reasons for arriving at the
conclusion. I do not find any illegality much less any perversity in
the findings recorded by the Labour Court. No case is made out to
interfere with the findings arrived at by the Labour Court. Hence,
the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
For
the foregoing reasons, the present petition fails and is,
accordingly, dismissed summarily.
(K.S.
Jhaveri, J)
Aakar
Top