Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1410/2005 1/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1410 of 2005
==============================================================
MUBARAKKHAN
M RATHOD - Appellant(s)
Versus
SECRETARY,FOREST
& ENVIRONMENTDEPARTMENT & 2 - Respondent(s)
==============================================================
Appearance
:
MR
TR MISHRA for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR SIRAJ GORI, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
==================================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE B.J.SHETHNA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL
Date
: 25/10/2005
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.J.SHETHNA)
Heard
learned Counsel Shri Mishra for the appellant and learned AGP Shri
Gori, appearing on the advance copy of this Appeal being served upon
for the respondents.
The
Labour Court, Jamnagar, dismissed the Reference by its impugned
Judgment and Award dated 20.11.2003 which was challenged by the
appellant workman before this Court by way of Special Civil
Application No.5131 of 2004 on the ground that there was a violation
of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, the said
petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge (Akil Kureshi, J.)
of this Court on 27.7.2004 on the ground that the workman failed to
prove that he had actually worked for more than 240 days in one
calendar year and also relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of M/S. ESSEN DEINKI v/s. RAJIV KUMAR reported in
AIR 2003 SC 38 and another decision in the case of RANGE FOREST
OFFICER v/s. S.T.HADIMANI, reported in AIR 2002 SC 1147.
Hence, this Appeal.
Shri
Gori, learned AGP submitted that in view of the Full Bench decision
of this Court, reported in 2004 (2) GLR 1488 of this Court the
workman was not entitled for any relief because he was working with
the Forest Department. However, Shri Mishra tried to distinguish the
same and submitted that though he was working in Forest Department,
but his case would not be covered by the Full Bench Judgment. There
is no substance in this submission. Hence, it is rejected.
Even
assuming for the sake of argument that the aforesaid Judgment of the
Full Bench of this Court is not applicable in the case of appellant ?
workman then also we would not have interfered with the Judgment and
order passed by the learned Single Judge in view of the solid and
cogent reasons assigned by him in his Judgment while dismissing the
writ petition. The law on this point is very settled. The burden is
heavily on the workman to prove that he had worked for more than 240
days in one calender year. When the Labour Court as well as learned
Single Judge of this Court have come to the conclusion that the
workman failed to prove that he had worked for more than 240 days
during the calender year preceding the date of order of his
termination then there is no question of interference by this Court
in this Letters Patent Appeal.
In
view of the above discussion, this Appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed.
(B.J.SHETHNA,J.)
(M.C.PATEL,
J.)
sas
Top