Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/602/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 602 of 2010
=========================================
KANTABEN
NARSINHBHAI NAYAK - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SEED
GROWTH CENTER (UNDER DISTRICT PANCHAYAT) & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR
ND SONGARA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 29/01/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
Shri N.D.Songara, learned advocate for the petitioner.
2. The
petitioner, second party before the Labour Court in Reference(L.C.A.)
No.1203 of 2005, has approached this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the order and award dated 24th
July, 2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmedabad,
rejecting the Reference for the reasons stated thereunder.
3. It
was the case of the petitioner workwoman that she was working as
sweeper and was doing miscellaneous job for the last 20 years prior
to the date of her termination. She was not given any other benefits
which were given to the permanent employee and, therefore, when she
demanded the same, she was victimized and by oral order dated
29.6.2005, her services came to be terminated without complying with
the due procedure of law.
4. Being
aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said illegal termination, she
raised industrial dispute and demanded reinstatement with full
backwages which came to be referred to the competent Court wherein it
was marked as Reference(L.C.A.) No.1203 of 2005. The Labour Court
after recording it’s finding with regard to petitioner’s inability to
make out the case for indicating any illegality in termination,
rejected the same vide order impugned in this petition.
5. Shri
Songara, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that
the Labour Court has, in absence of appropriate pleadings from and on
behalf of the respondent employer, rejected the reference. Had the
employer made it’s appearance before the Court, then application for
production of documents could have been made by the petitioner
workwoman. He submitted that the petitioner workwoman had put in 20
years of service which have been rendered useless as the illegal
termination is wrongfully upheld by the Labour Court in the impugned
order.
6. This
Court is unable to accept the submission of Shri Songara for the
petitioner for the following reasons:-
(1) The
fact remains to be noted that the petitioner workwoman did not make
any application seeking production of documents from the respondents.
By now, the law with regard to burden of proving the case has been
crystallized.
(2) It
was the duty cast upon the petitioner workwoman to first establish
her case for seeking relief under the reference when the Court has
recorded in unequivocal terms that the lady could not prove her case,
and the so-called wage-slip which was sought to be relied upon as an
evidence to indicate employment did not bear any mark indicating that
there was employment or whether there was any relationship of
employer and employee.
7. In
absence of any specific production of document when the Labour Court
had come to the conclusion that the petitioner workwoman failed in
establishing her case, this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, would not interfere. The petition being bereft
of merits deserves rejection and accordingly it is rejected. There
shall be no order as to costs.
(S.
R. Brahmbhatt, J. )
sudhir
Top
