Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/14804/2010 6/ 6 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14804 of
2010
=========================================================
RAJESHBHAI
BHIKHABHAI PARMAR - Petitioner(s)
Versus
CHECKMATE
SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SJ SHAH for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MR ND SONGARA for Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for
Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date
: 03/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
The
petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, challenging the award passed by the Labour
Court, Vadodara, dismissing the Reference (LCV) No.33/2006 on
26.04.2010.
Heard
Mr. N.D. Songara, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and
perused the award passed by the Labour Court as well as documents
attached with the petition.
It
is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was working as a
driver with respondent No.2, for last about 5 years. Before his
order of termination, he met with an accident during the course of
employment on 10.10.2005 and he was not able to drive the vehicle.
He had, therefore, submitted leave report alongwith medical
certificate. Thereafter, on 10.11.2005 he resumed his duty
alongwith fitness certificate, however, he was not allowed to report
for duty. The petitioner again reported for duty on 23.11.2005 with
all medical papers and the petitioner was not allowed to resume his
duty. Thereafter, he approached the Labour Commissioner for
conciliation and on failure of conciliation proceeding, reference
was filed being Reference No.33/2006, wherein he has filed Statement
of Claim. On behalf of the respondents, written statement was filed
and ultimately after considering the evidence on record, the Labour
Court has dismissed the reference on the ground that the petitioner
has himself left the service and there was no question of
termination of service by the respondent employer.
It
is this award which is under challenge in the present petition.
Mr.
Songara, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted
that the Labour Court has not considered the evidence on record in
its true perspective. Despite the fact that the respondent’s
fitness, Mr. Viral Rajnikant Das has deposed before the Court that
the petitioner has submitted the leave report along with medical
certificate, it is observed by the Labour Court that no documentary
evidence was produced by the petitioner with regard to his leave
report as well as medical certificate. He has further submitted
that on 23.11.2005, the petitioner has reported his duty. As per the
respondent’s instruction, he went on 24.11.2005 to Gujarat State
Petronet Limited, however, he was not allowed to work there. He has,
therefore, submitted that the petitioner’s services were orally
terminated by the respondents without complying with the provisions
of Industrial Disputes Act and hence the Labour Court has committed
a grave error in dismissing the reference preferred by the
petitioner.
Having
heard, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and having gone
through the impugned award alongwith evidence on record, the Court
is of the view that a contrary stand is taken by the petitioner in
his statement of claim as well as in his evidence before the Labour
Court. In his statement of claim, he has stated that his services
were terminated orally on 10.10.2005. However, the petitioner was
met with an accident, thereafter he reported his duty on 11.11.2005.
He again reported on 23.11.2005, hence there is no question of
termination of services, however, petitioner is orally terminated on
10.10.2005. It has also come on record that the respondent employer
has issued a letter on 30.11.2005, directing the petitioner to
report his duty, no reply has been given by the petitioner to the
said letter. The petitioner has submitted before the Labour Court
that no one remain present on behalf of the employer before the
concerned Assistant Labour Commissioner. However, specific letter
was written by the respondent employer on 10.01.2006, wherein the
entire facts were reiterated and it was clearly stated that the
respondent employer has specifically asked the petitioner to report
to his duty on 24.11.2005, however, till that date he did not report
to the duty. It is further stated that the respondent was paid the
bonus as well as salary which were accepted by him. Purshis filed
by the petitioner before the Labour Court does not appear to be
correct. Wrong facts were stated in the said purshis. Despite the
fact that on behalf of the respondent employer a letter was written
and a representative of the respondent employer remained present
before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, in the purshis he stated
that no one remained present and for the first time in the reference
proceeding, a stand is taken to that effect.
Considering
all the above aspects of the matter, the Labour Court has rightly
observed in its award that the petitioner was not dismissed from
service by the respondent employer. On the contrary, he has himself
left the services.
In
view of the specific finding given by the Labour Court, this Court
does not see any merit in this petition and hence it is summarily
dismissed.
(K.A.
PUJ, J.)
Pankaj
Top