Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10407/2010 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10407 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
=========================================
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 ?
=========================================
RAJUBHAI
MAANSINGBHAI SOLANKI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
RANGE
FOREST OFFICER - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
SHAKTI S JADEJA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 03/09/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order
quashing and setting aside the impugned
judgment and award dated 02.01.2009 passed by the learned Presiding
Officer, Labuor Court, Amreli in Reference (L.C.A.) No.153/2001, by
which the Labour Court has dismissed the said reference.
2. The
petitioner was serving as daily wager Chokidar and even according to
him he worked for only 13 months and was paid the wages at the rate
of Rs.40 per month. Even according to the petitioner, his services
came to be terminated orally on and from 01.06.1986. That after a
period of 15 years, the petitioner raised industrial dispute
challenging his alleged termination with effect from 01.06.1986,
which was referred to Labour Court, Amreli which was numbered as
Reference (L.C.A.) No.153/2001. On appreciation of evidence and
considering the fact that industrial dispute was raised after a
period of 15 years, the Labour Court held that there was no
retrenchment and/or termination at all but the petitioner voluntarily
abandoned the services and consequently the Labour Court dismissed
the said reference. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
aforesaid judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Amreli dated
02.01.2009 passed in Reference (L.C.A.) No.153/2001, petitioner has
preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India.
3. Shri
Jadeja, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner
vehemently submitted that even in the cross-examination, the witness
who came to be examined on behalf of the respondent has admitted that
at the time of termination, no seniority list was maintained.
Therefore, it is to be presumed that the petitioner was terminated.
Therefore, it is submitted that finding given by the Labour Court
that the petitioner had voluntarily abandoned the service is contrary
to the evidence on record. It is submitted that at the relevant time
when the services of the petitioner was terminated, no retrenchment
compensation was paid though he completed 240 days of service and
thus, there was committed breach of Section 25(F) of the Industrial
Disputes Act and therefore, the Labour Court ought to have allowed
the reference by directing the respondent to reinstate the
petitioner.
4. Having
heard Shri Jadeja, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and considering the impugned judgment and award, it
appears that the learned Labour Court has, on appreciation of
evidence and considering the fact that industrial dispute was raised
after a period of more than approximately 15 years, held that the
petitioner had voluntarily abandoned the work and therefore, he did
not approach the Industrial Tribunal at the relevant time. Even the
aforesaid finding is on appreciation of evidence which is not
required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is an admitted
position even according to the petitioner himself that in the year
1986, he worked only for 13 months and that too as daily wager peon
and nothing is on record that for how many days, he has worked in the
year 1986. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it
cannot be said that the Labour Court has committed any error in
dismissing the reference.
5. In
view of the above, there is no substance in the present petition
which deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(M.R.
Shah, J.)
*menon
Top