{"id":249738,"date":"2011-05-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-vs-aminesh-on-13-may-2011"},"modified":"2016-03-18T06:26:11","modified_gmt":"2016-03-18T00:56:11","slug":"surat-vs-aminesh-on-13-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-vs-aminesh-on-13-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"Surat vs Aminesh on 13 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Surat vs Aminesh on 13 May, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: V. M. G.B.Shah,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nLPA\/1598\/2007\t 17\/ 17\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 1598 of 2007\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 423 of 2001\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI \n\n \n\n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH\n \n=================================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?    \n\t\t\t                      \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=================================================\n \n\nSURAT\nMUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nAMINESH\nCHANDRAVADAN BODIWALA - Respondent(s)\n \n\n================================================= \nAppearance\n: \nMR PRASHANT G DESAI  with Ms.\nRutul Desai for Appellant(s) : 1, \nMR AK CLERK for Respondent(s) :\n1, \n=================================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n\t\t\t\t\nDate : 13\/05\/2011 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH)<\/p>\n
1.\t\tWe
\nhave heard the learned counsel Mr Rutul Desai holding brief of Mr P G
\nDesai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr A K Clerk,
\nlearned counsel for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
Being
\naggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 25.7.2007 passed by
\nthe learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.423 of 2001,
\nthe appellant has preferred this appeal under clause 15 of the
\nLetters Patent on the grounds stated in the memo of Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tThe brief facts of the
\npresent appeal are that the appellant is Surat Municipal Corporation
\nduly constituted under the provisions of the Bombay Provincial
\nMunicipal Corporations Act, 1949. As per Resolution No.46 dated
\n11.5.1992, the respondent was appointed as a trainee and was serving
\nas Primary Health Worker (Male) from 23.3.1994. It was specifically
\nmentioned in the said Resolution that the training period of the
\nrespondent would be of one year and within one year if the work of
\nthe respondent was not found satisfactory, then the same may be
\nextended for further six months and thereafter during the extended
\nperiod also if the work of the respondent was not found satisfactory,
\nthe appellant Corporation can terminate the services of the
\nrespondent without issuing any notice.  The service of the respondent
\nwas terminated on 8.11.1995 as the respondent has remained absent
\nunauthorisedly.  The  respondent had filed Reference (LCS) No.783 of
\n1997 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Surat seeking the
\nrelief to reinstate him to his original post with full back wages. It
\nis contended by the respondent that since he was arrested in one
\ncriminal offence and  as he was in judicial custody,  it was not
\npossible for him to attend his duty and so he remained absent from
\nduty.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tBefore the Labour Court,
\non behalf of the appellant Corporation it was contended that the
\nrespondent was a trainee and therefore, no notice was required to be
\nissued before terminating his service.  However, the appellant
\nCorporation had issued show cause notice to the respondent but the
\nsame had not been accepted by the respondent and had refused the said
\n notice.  After hearing the parties, the Labour Court, by its
\njudgment and award dated 18.5.2000 was pleased to partly allow the
\nReference (LCS) No.783 of 1997 filed by the respondent and the
\nlearned Presiding Officer had directed the appellant Corporation to
\nreinstate the respondent to his original post with continuity of
\nservice without paying any back wages.  Being aggrieved and
\ndissatisfied with the judgment and  award of the Labour Court, the
\nappellant herein preferred Special Civil Application No.423 of 2001.
\nThe learned Single Judge has disposed of the said Special Civil
\nApplication by order dated 25.7.2007 with a direction that the
\nworkman should be reinstated in service but without any back wages
\nand without continuity of service. It is this order under challenge
\nby the appellants before this court.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tThe learned counsel for
\nthe appellants has submitted that the learned Presiding Officer and
\nthe Learned Single Judge ought to have considered that the respondent
\nis not a permanent employee of the Corporation and in case of
\ntrainee, no lengthy procedure was required to be followed more
\nparticularly when there was clear lapse on the part of the respondent
\nthat too during the fixed training period.  He has, then submitted
\nthat before terminating the services of the respondent, the appellant
\nhad already issued show cause notice to the respondent which was
\nreturned with the postal endorsement “refused” and,
\ntherefore, it cannot be said that the appellant Corporation had not
\ngiven any opportunity to the respondent as has been observed by the
\nlearned Presiding Officer and the learned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tThe learned counsel Mr A
\nK Clerk appearing for the respondent has vehemently submitted that
\nbefore terminating the services of the respondent, no opportunity of
\nhearing was given to the respondent nor was there any departmental
\ninquiry held against the respondent for which the alleged misconduct
\nagainst the respondent for remaining absent without leave.  He has,
\nthen submitted that the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has
\nrightly observed that the respondent was not paid one month’s notice
\npay in accordance with the Standing Orders and, therefore, there is
\nviolation of Section 25-F<\/a> of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.  He
\nhas also submitted that the respondent was involved in a criminal
\ncase and due to the circumstances beyond his control, he had remained
\nabsent from duty and hence the same cannot be treated as
\nunsatisfactory work or misconduct.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tWe have considered the
\nabove referred submissions made by the learned counsel for the
\nparties in light of the documentary evidence forthcoming on the
\nrecord and proceedings of this appeal.  It is important to note that
\nas per Resolution No.46 dated 11.5.1992, the respondent was appointed
\nas Trainee.  As per the approved conditions of the said Resolution
\nNo.46, the training period would be of one year and within one year
\nif the training work of the respondent was not found satisfactory
\nthen the period of training may be extended and in spite of that if
\nthe work of the respondent is not found satisfactory then the
\nappellant Corporation may terminate the service of the respondent.
\nDuring the training period, the respondent being paid a fixed amount
\nof Rs.1000\/- per month towards work charges. Moreover, after the
\ncompletion of satisfactory training period, the services of the
\nrespondent shall be counted from the day on which he was appointed
\nand this training period shall not be counted for the purpose of
\nservice period or for any other purposes.  Learned counsel for the
\nappellant has submitted that the Presiding Officer of the Labour
\nCourt as well as the learned  Single Judge appears to have not taken
\ninto consideration the above referred resolution No.46 and the
\napproved conditions of the said Resolution dated 11.5.1992 which is
\npart and parcel of the appointment order of the respondent dated
\n22.3.1994 at Annexure ‘A’.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tWe have perused the
\nimpugned award dated 18.5.2000 passed in Reference (LCS) No.783\/97
\nand the order dated 25.7.2007 of the learned Single Judge passed in
\nSpecial Civil Application No.423 of 2001.  The learned Presiding
\nOfficer of the Labour Court has mainly observed that before
\ndismissing the present respondent from service, no opportunity was
\ngiven to the respondent nor was there any departmental inquiry held
\nagainst him and was not paid one month’s notice pay in accordance
\nwith the Standing Orders and hence there is violation of Section 25-F<\/a>
\nof the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’) and so
\nthe termination of service of the present respondent is illegal.
\nLearned counsel for the appellant has then submitted that the learned
\nSingle Judge has placed reliance on the list of events and
\naccordingly observed that the respondent was terminated from service
\nbecause he was involved in some criminal case and it is not in
\ndispute before him that the respondent workman was acquitted of the
\nsaid criminal case.  The learned Single Judge has observed that right
\nfrom 20.4.1995 to 29.9.1995, the appellant Corporation was issuing
\nnotices to the workman to show cause or explain as to why he was on
\nleave and further observed that this certainly would show frame of
\nthe mind of the authorities of the Corporation.  It is relevant to
\nnote at this juncture that in the award and the affidavit-in-reply of
\nthe respondent dated 17.9.2000 it has come on record that the police
\nhad arrested the respondent and sent him to  judicial custody and the
\nrespondent was acquitted of the charges by the criminal court by
\norder dated 24.7.1996.  The said acquittal order had been produced by
\nthe respondent before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court but no
\nfurther details were forthcoming on the record either in the award or
\nin the records and proceedings of this appeal like date of
\nregistration of the criminal case and its number, date, time and
\nplace of offence, name of the complainant, name of the witnesses,
\ndate of arrest of the respondent\/accused, the date of filing of
\nCriminal Misc. Application by the respondent\/accused for his release
\non bail if at all filed, or what period he remained in judicial
\ncustody etc. Moreover, the acquittal was by way of benefit of doubt
\nor clear acquittal and whether thereafter any appeal had been filed
\nagainst the said acquittal order before higher forum or not is also
\nnot forthcoming on record.  Thus, it appears that while discharging
\ntheir official duty right from 20.4.1995 to 29.9.1995 the appellant
\nCorporation had been issuing notices to the respondent regarding his
\nunintimated and unauthorised absence but we do not find any
\nill-motive in the said action of the appellant as has been observed
\nby the learned Single Judge that it shows frame of the mind of the
\nauthorities of the appellant Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tThe learned Single Jude
\nhas also observed in para 8 of the order that in case of a trainee
\nwhen it is found that his training was not going on satisfactorily,
\nthen such trainee is required to be informed of his shortcomings and
\nthe defects so that he can improve and he can have a
\nself-introspection. The learned Single Judge has also observed that
\nin absence of such a communication to the respondent workman, he was
\nunable to hold that the period of training was extended because the
\nfirst part of the training was not satisfactorily completed.  Learned
\ncounsel for the appellant  argues that to inform regarding the
\nshortcomings and defects,  presence of the respondent was required
\nand in the present case the respondent had not completed his training
\nperiod of one year and the said information by Registered Post with
\nA.D. was issued to the respondent by the appellant but the same was
\nrefused by the respondent and this fact had not been considered by
\nthe learned Single Judge.  We have gone through the record and we
\nfind ourselves in agreement with the above referred submissions made
\nby the learned counsel for the appellant and in our view, the learned
\nSingle Judge has not properly appreciated the above facts of the case
\nand erred in observing that the shortcomings and defects had not been
\ncommunicated by the appellant to the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tLearned counsel for the
\nappellant has then submitted that it is relevant to note that the
\nrespondent was appointed by order dated 22.3.1994 as Trainee for one
\nyear and the respondent had joined duty from 25.3.1994 and remained
\nabsent unauthorisedly since 4.2.1995 i.e. prior to the completion of
\nthe period of one year and on 20.4.1995, the appellant Corporation
\nhad issued memo to the respondent which was returned back and so
\nagain on 25.5.1995  memo was issued and the same was returned with an
\nendorsement “refused”. Learned counsel for the appellant
\nhas further submitted that regarding the second memo dated 25.5.1995
\nwhich had been returned with the postal endorsement “refused”
\nneither the Presiding Officer, Labour Court had taken any cognizance
\nnor any cognizance was taken by the learned Single Judge though the
\nsaid question\/fact has not at all been challenged by the respondent
\nand for that we will go into the facts on the record chronologically
\nas under:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\t\tAnnexure ‘A’ is the
\nundated copy of the written statement filed by the first litigant
\ni.e. Surat Maha Nagarpalika in which in para 4 it is specifically
\nstated at the initial point of time that the postal article  No.1008
\ndated 25.5.95 was sent by Registered Post A.D. was returned with the
\npostal endorsement “refused”.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tThe award dated
\n18.5.2000 is at pages 31 to 38.  On page No.33 it is observed by the
\nlearned Presiding Officer, Labour Court that number of times, the
\ncovers forwarded to second party litigant i.e. the respondent had
\nreturned but it appears to us that no cognizance had been taken by
\nthe Labour Court to observe that the same was returned with the
\npostal endorsement “refused” as mentioned in the written
\nstatement by the first party litigant i.e. the appellant or not.  It
\nis important to note that it has also not been observed by the
\nPresiding Officer in the said award that the say of the first
\nlitigant i.e. the present appellant in its written statement relating
\nto postal cover returned with postal endorsement “refused”
\nis incorrect.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tIn para 3 of the
\nSpecial Civil Application No.423 of 2001 it is averred by the
\npetitioner\/appellant that the Corporation had also issued notice to
\nthe respondent but the same had not been accepted by the respondent
\nand the respondent himself had refused to accept the said notice.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tPages 39 to 44  is the
\naffidavit-in-reply dated 17.9.2000 of the respondent and further
\naffidavit dated 20.11.2005 of the respondent is at pages No. 50 and\n<\/p>\n
51. We have perused both the affidavits of the respondent and so far
\nas the above narrated facts at point No.(iii) relating to postal
\narticle returned with the postal endorsement “refused” had
\nnot been denied by the respondent or the respondent had not uttered a
\nsingle word relating to it.\n<\/p>\n
(v)  Para 12 at page No.5 of
\nthis  Letters Patent Appeal reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“Because the learned
\nsingle Judge ought to have considered that on 20.4.1995 the
\nAppellant-Corporation had issued the Memo to the respondent which was
\nreturned back. It was also required to be considered by the learned
\nsingle Judge that again on 25.5.1995 the Memo was issued and the same
\nwas returned with an endorsement of “refuse”.\n<\/p>\n
From the above
\nfacts forthcoming on the record, though nothing is mentioned on those
\nfacts either in the award of the learned Presiding Officer or in the
\njudgment of the learned Single Judge though it clearly shows that
\nbefore terminating the services of the respondent, the appellant had
\nissued show cause notice memo dated 25.5.1995 to the respondent but
\nthe said show cause notice was returned with postal endorsement
\n“refused”. Thus, in our view, it cannot be said that the
\nappellant Corporation had not given any opportunity to the respondent
\nbut in fact the respondent had not accepted the said opportunity for
\nthe reasons best  known to him.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tIt is also
\nimportant to note that the appointment of the respondent as Primary
\nHealth Worker (Male) was purely on training basis and subject to the
\nconditions laid down  in Resolution No.46 dated 11.5.1992 which is
\nannexed at Annexure ‘A’.  As per condition No.5 of the said
\nResolution dated 11.5.1992, it is clear that if the Corporation found
\nthat the Trainee  has not satisfactorily completed the training
\nperiod despite extension of six months, the Corporation shall
\nterminate the services of the Trainee.  As referred above, the
\nrespondent had joined duty from 25.3.1994 and had remained absent
\nunreportedly and unauthorisedly since 4.2.1995 i.e. he had not
\ncompleted the training period of one year.  As discussed above, the
\ntraining period was extended because the first part of the training
\nwas not satisfactorily completed as he had remained absent
\nunauthorisedly.  In para 6 of the affidavit-in-reply the respondent
\nhas contended that he was acquitted by the Criminal Court on
\n24.7.1996. As discussed above, no further data regarding the said
\ncriminal case has been forthcoming on record. Even during the
\njudicial custody he could have intimated about his leave to the
\nemployer but nothing has been intimated by the respondent about his
\nunauthorised absence to the appellant. Under these circumstances, we
\nfail to understand as to how one can accept the observation of the
\nlearned Presiding Officer, Labour Court that the departmental inquiry
\ncould be initiated that too for a trainee worker more particularly
\nwhen the postal article forwarded to the Trainee had been returned
\nwith the postal endorsement “refused”. From 4.2.1995, the
\nrespondent remained absent as per the evidence forthcoming on the
\nrecord.  On 28.8.1997, the respondent had applied to the appellant
\nCorporation stating all the facts and Reference was preferred by the
\nrespondent before the Labour Court.  There is substance in the
\nsubmission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was
\nrequired to be considered by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour
\nCourt as well as by the  learned Single Judge that the respondent had
\nfiled Reference after an interval of two years, therefore, the
\nReference itself was time barred.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tLearned
\ncounsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a decision in Nilesh
\nBhatt v. Administrative Officer, Nagar Prathamik Shikshan Samiti 1996
\n(1) GLH 108 in which it has been held that an opportunity of
\nhearing before the termination from service need not be given to the
\nperson whose appointment is for a fixed period.  In the case on hand,
\nin spite of ample  opportunity was given to the respondent, he had
\nrefused to accept the postal article as referred above.  Learned
\ncounsel for the appellant has also submitted that the order passed by
\nthe Corporation challenged before the Labour Court was as such not a
\npunitive order in nature but it was merely a discharge simplicitor
\nand, therefore, the appellant Corporation is not required to hold any
\ndepartmental inquiry against the respondent-Trainee employee.  He has
\nplaced reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Viveka Nand
\nSethi  v. Chairman, J & K Bank Ltd. and Others<\/a> (2005) 5 SCC 337
\nwherein it is held as under:\n<\/p>\n
“The
\nprinciples of natural justice are required to be complied with having
\nregard to the fact situation obtaining therein. It cannot be put in a
\nstraitjacket formula. It cannot be applied in a vacuum without
\nreference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. The
\nprinciple of natural justice, it is trite, is no unruly horse. When
\nthe facts are admitted, an inquiry will be an empty formality.\n<\/p>\n
In the present
\ncase, as discussed above, it is indisputably admitted that the postal
\narticles were refused by the respondent and thus no requirement of
\nany further inquiry has arisen.  We find ourselves in agreement with
\nthis submission of the learned counsel for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
12.\t\tLearned
\ncounsel for the appellant has then submitted that section 25F<\/a> of the
\nAct is also not applicable to the trainee employee as the trainee
\nemployee is not a workman and so industrial dispute also would not
\nlie before the Labour Court.  We have seen that even the respondent
\nhas not led any evidence to the effect that he had completed 240 days
\nin a preceding year and so section 25F<\/a> of the Act would not be
\napplicable.  He has also placed reliance on a decision in State
\nof Punjab v. Jagir Singh<\/a> AIR 2004 SC 4757 in
\nwhich it is held that the question of compliance of the provisions of
\nSection 25-F<\/a> of the Industrial Disputes Act would arise, if the
\nservices of the concerned workman were terminated on a ground other
\nthan misconduct and therefore, there is no requirement of compliance
\nof the provisions of Section 25-F<\/a> of
\nthe Act. Lastly the learned counsel for the appellant has placed
\nreliance
\non a decision reported in Swaraj Tractors
\nDivision, Punjab v. Raghbir Singh<\/a> AIR 2004 SC 1234
\n wherein it is held that nothing on record to show that workman made
\nany attempt to communicate with employer seeking leave of absence and
\nworkman remained absent without leave commits misconduct and
\ntherefore, the order of termination is valid.\n<\/p>\n
13.\t\tIt is the
\ncase of the respondent that since he was in judicial custody, it was
\nnot possible for him to attend his duty as the said circumstances
\nwere beyond his control and he remained absent from duty.  We do not
\nfind any substance in the said submission made by the learned counsel
\nfor the respondent as we have already observed as above except the
\nacquittal order from the criminal case against the respondent as
\nforthcoming on record, no further data as narrated in para 7 above
\nwere available on record to show that in fact the circumstances were
\nbeyond the control of the respondent.  Moreover, it is important to
\nnote at this juncture that in spite of giving written intimation to
\nthe respondent dated 25.5.1995 by Registered A.D. Post and he had
\nrefused the said postal article and so now he cannot take advantage
\nby submitting that since he was in judicial custody it was not
\npossible for him to attend his duty without any further data relating
\nto said criminal case lodged against the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
14.\t\tWhen an
\nemployee is absent from duty even without prior intimation for a very
\nlong period,  it prima facie shows the lack of interest in one’s work
\nor job. Moreover, in the case  on hand, in spite of giving written
\nintimation show cause notice\/memo through postal article sent by
\nRegistered Post with A.D., the said postal article had been returned
\nwith endorsement ‘refused’ and under the circumstances that shows
\nlack of interest in work then how we can expect anything more from
\nthe appellant Corporation.  The respondent claims that there was no
\nnegligence and because he was in judicial custody and because of
\nunavoidable circumstances he remained absent.  But the burden lies on
\nthe respondent to prove his case by placing relevant materials on
\nrecord. As discussed above, except date of acquittal of the criminal
\ncase i.e.  24.7.1996, no further data of the said case such as
\nregistration of the criminal case and its number, date, time and
\nplace of offence, name of the complainant, name of the witnesses,
\ndate of arrest of the respondent\/accused, the date of filing of
\nCriminal Misc. Application by the respondent\/accused for his release
\non bail if at all filed, or what period he remained in judicial
\ncustody etc. are not on record.  Hence, the respondent has failed to
\nshow his bonafides and interest in his duty to be performed by him
\nmore particularly when he had refused to accept the show cause
\nnotice\/memo  sent by post by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
15.\t\tFrom the
\nabove discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the
\nrespondent had remained absent unintimated and unauthorisedly and he
\nhad deliberately chosen not to resume the duties after the break as
\nhe had ‘refused’ to accept the postal article referred above.  It
\nappears that the attention of the Labour Court though was drawn by
\nwritten reply, the learned Presiding Officer had not touched  and
\nnot considered that aspect and as the respondent had not denied the
\nfact that the intimation sent to him by Registered Post had been
\nrefused by him, in our view, the question of remand of this matter to
\nthe Labour Court does not arise at all. The Labour Court thus failed
\nto consider the conduct of the respondent in not joining his duties
\ndespite having been asked to do so by Registered  Post A.D.  The
\nlearned Single Judge also has not considered the above facts while
\ndeciding the writ petition.  We are conscious of the fact that while
\nsitting in Appeal, we can neither reassess the evidence nor can we
\ntake a different view on the material on record, but we are of the
\nview that when clear omission of evidence forthcoming on record as
\ndiscussed above which have also been sidelined, then the same is
\nrequired to be taken care of at the appellate stage.\n<\/p>\n
16.\t\tIn the
\nresult, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned award dated
\n18.5.2000 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Surat in
\nReference (LCS) No.783 of 1997 and the order dated 25.7.2007 passed
\nby the learned Single Judge in  Special Civil Application No.423 of
\n2001 are set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[V
\n M SAHAI, J.]<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[G
\nB  SHAH, J.]<\/p>\n
msp<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Surat vs Aminesh on 13 May, 2011 Author: V. M. G.B.Shah,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print LPA\/1598\/2007 17\/ 17 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1598 of 2007 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 423 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-249738","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSurat vs Aminesh on 13 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-vs-aminesh-on-13-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Surat vs Aminesh on 13 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-vs-aminesh-on-13-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-05-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-18T00:56:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-vs-aminesh-on-13-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-vs-aminesh-on-13-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Surat vs Aminesh on 13 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-18T00:56:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-vs-aminesh-on-13-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3860,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-vs-aminesh-on-13-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-vs-aminesh-on-13-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-vs-aminesh-on-13-may-2011\",\"name\":\"Surat vs Aminesh on 13 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-18T00:56:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-vs-aminesh-on-13-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-vs-aminesh-on-13-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-vs-aminesh-on-13-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Surat vs Aminesh on 13 May, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Surat vs Aminesh on 13 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-vs-aminesh-on-13-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Surat vs Aminesh on 13 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-vs-aminesh-on-13-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-18T00:56:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-vs-aminesh-on-13-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-vs-aminesh-on-13-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Surat vs Aminesh on 13 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-18T00:56:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-vs-aminesh-on-13-may-2011"},"wordCount":3860,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-vs-aminesh-on-13-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-vs-aminesh-on-13-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-vs-aminesh-on-13-may-2011","name":"Surat vs Aminesh on 13 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-18T00:56:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-vs-aminesh-on-13-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-vs-aminesh-on-13-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-vs-aminesh-on-13-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Surat vs Aminesh on 13 May, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/249738","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=249738"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/249738\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=249738"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=249738"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=249738"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}