IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 4145 OF 1996
WITH
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2641 OF 1997
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5820 OF 1997
IN
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4145 OF 1996.
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.R.CALLA Sd/-
============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
Nos. 1 to 5 No.
————————————————————–
GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD
Versus
I. J. TRIVEDI
————————————————————–
Appearance:
SPL.C.A.NO 4145 OF 1996.
MR TUSHAR MEHTA for Petitioner
MR NR SHAHANI for Respondent.
SPL.C.A.NO.2641 OF 1997.
MR NR SHAHANI for petitioner.
MR TUSHAR MEHTA for Respondent.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5820 OF 1997
MR NR SHAHANI for Applicant.
MR.RUSHAR MEHTA for Opponent.
————————————————
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.R.CALLA
Date of decision: 23/06/97
COMMON ORAL JUDGEMENT
The aforesaid Special Civil Applications came up
before me along with Civil Application No. 5820 of 1997.
In the facts and circumstances of the case I consider it
appropriate to decide these matters finally today.
These two Special Civil Applications are directed
against the award dated 8.1.1996 passed by the Labour
Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 1174 of 1987.
Special Civil Application No. 4145 of 1996 has been
filed by Gujarat Electricity Board whereas Special Civil
Application No. 2641 of 1997 has been filed by the
workman. Gujarat Electricity Board is aggrieved against
the relief of reinstatement and the workman is aggrieved
against the denial of continuity of service and
backwages.
The workman represented through Mr.Shahani was
employed with Gujarat Electricity Board as Clerk. The
parties were at dispute as to whether the workman had
actually abandoned the job by tendering his resignation
and not reporting on duty or as to whether the workman
had been orally terminated. The dispute raised by the
workman was referred to the Labour Court, Ahmedabad and
the Labour Court, Ahmedabad vide impugned award dated
8.1.1996 has granted relief of reinstatement to the
workman without continuity of service and without
backwages. The case of the Gujarat Electricity Board is
that the workman had stopped reporting on duty from
17.1.1984. The Board had sent letter dated 2.3.1984 but
the workman did not file any reply nor he did send any
certificate for being sick. The Board thereafter sent
letters dated 14.6.1984, 19.7.1984, 28.8.1984 and
22.10.1984 but the workman did not report for duty. The
workman then submitted his resignation on 30.11.1984
which was addressed to Deputy Engineer, Gujarat
Electricity Board, Nardipur saying that he was resigning
because of harassment. The letter dated 18.12.1984 was
sent calling upon him to report for duty, the workman yet
did not report and thereafter on 31.12.1985 the
resignation was accepted and an office order to that
effect was passed. The order of acceptance of
resignation has been placed on record in Special Civil
Application No. 2641 if 1997 as Annexure ‘C’. Gujarat
Electricity Board has come with the categorical case that
the services of the petitioner were never terminated and
that in fact the workman had resigned on 30.11.1984 and
his resignation was accepted on 31.12.1985. The workman
had examined himself only before the Labour Court whereas
Gujarat Electricity Board examined Dahyabhai Hirabhai
Solanki. The Labour Court after considering the
pleadings and with material evidence of both the sides
and the submissions which were raised on behalf of the
respective counsel came to the conclusion that the
workman had failed to prove all his pleadings by leading
either oral evidence or producing any documentary
evidence and that he had failed to prove his own pleading
regarding oral termination, victimization, threats and
exploitation. The Labour Court also found that the Board
had sent several letters to the workman for reporting on
duty but the workman failed to report on duty inspite of
repeated letters. The Labour Court has also
categorically held in para 12 that it was proved that the
workman had not come before the Court with clean hands
and had indulged into suppression of material facts while
filing statement of claim. The Labour Court had also
considered the plea of the workman that resignation was
accepted too late in the day and has also observed that
plausible explanation has been given by the Board for
delay in acceptance of the letter of resignation which
was submitted at Nardipur and then it was submitted to
the Executive Engineer and the Labour Court has also
observed that if the workman was interested in doing his
duties he should have reported for his duties when
letters at exhibits 17 to 22 were written to him. The
Labour Court has also recorded that the workman did not
report for duty inspite of several letters by the Board
speaks volumes regarding his credibility and instead of
reporting for duties he had chosen to knock the doors of
the Court for getting his job back. Having held so, in
the operative part the Labour Court has granted relief of
reinstatement without continuity of service and without
backwages.
One fails to understand how the Labour Court
could grant relief of reinstatement in the light of its
findings and reasons. The operative part of the order
passed by the Labour Court is not at all compatible with
its findings and reasons in the earlier part of the
award. It is established on record that the workman
failed to report on duty and further that he had tendered
resignation on 30.11.1984 which was accepted on
31.12.1985 and in this view of the matter there is no
question of granting relief of reinstatement and there is
no reason to find any legitimate grievance in favour of
the workman so as to even grant relief of reinstatement
in 1996 when the resignation had been accepted way back
in 1985. The finding of fact with regard to the
submissions and acceptance of the resignation had already
become a fait accompli and there was nothing to suggest
that it was a case of oral termination and the case of
the Gujarat Electricity Board that the workman had
abandoned the job is fully established.
Mr.Shahani pointed out that the resignation
letter dated 3.11.1984 was accepted on 31.12.1985 and in
the letter of acceptance of the resignation it has been
mentioned that on 31.12.1985 the resignation is accepted
with effect from 30.11.1984. The resignation could not
be accepted retrospectively and therefore the acceptance
of the resignation itself is bad. Sofar as the legal
contention goes Mr.Shahani is right in submitting that
resignation cannot be granted retrospectively, but in the
facts of this case, it is not possible to grant any
relief to the workman even if this contention is accepted
for the simple reason that the workman never reported for
duty despite repeated letters and therefore the relief
granting wages for the periode 30.11.1984 to 31.12.1985
also cannot be granted to him on the principle of ‘no
work no pay’ and also keeping in view the fact that this
period from 30.11.1984 to 31.12.1985, the workman was not
under any forced unemployment. The contention is
therefore futile in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
In this view of the matter, the Special Civil
Application filed by Gujarat Electricity Board against
the impugned award dated 8.1.1996 deserves to be allowed
and the Special Civil Application filed by the workman
deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly the order dated
8.1.1996 passed by the Labour Court granting relief of
reinstatement to the workman is hereby quashed and set
aside and as such there is no question of considering the
prayer of the workman for continuity of service and to
grant backwages as has been made in Special Civil
Application No. 2641 of 1997.
Special Civil Application No. 4145 of 1996 is
therefore allowed and the Rule is made absolute whereas
Special Civil Application No. 2641 of 1997 is hereby
dismissed and the Rule is discharged. No order as to
costs.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5820 OF 1997.
This Civil Application was moved by the
respondent workman in Special Civil Application No. 4145
of 1996. During the pendency of the Special Civil
Application relief under section 17B of the I.D.Act was
sought. The interim order was passed in Special Civil
Application No.4145 of 1996 on 9.9.1996. While issuing
Rule the order of interim relief was confirmed later on
after hearing both the sides. After confirmation of the
stay order, this Civil Application under section 17B had
been filed. Now the main Special Civil Application
itself has been decided, there is no question of
considering the prayer for 17B of the I.D.Act as the stay
order has also come to an end allowing the Special Civil
Application. The Civil Application is therefore
dismissed accordingly.
—–
m.m.bhatt.