Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 138 (GUJ)

BECHARBHAI NARANBHAI v. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

2009-03-03

K.M.THAKER

body2009
ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has challenged award dated 16.05.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference (LCS) Case No. 33 of 2002, whereby the Labour Court has rejected the said reference wherein the petitioner challenged his alleged oral termination w.e.f. 21.04.1984 and prayed for reinstatement with all consequential benefits. 2. Heard. Mr.H.S. Mulia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner. He submitted that the delay was duly explained by the petitioner. He claimed that the termination was effected in breach of pre-conditions prescribed by law and that the termination being illegal the petitioner rightfully deserved reinstatement and other benefits. 3. The petitioner herein had raised an industrial dispute upon being aggrieved by alleged oral termination on 21.04.1984. In view of the said grievance the reference was made to the Labour Court. The petitioner herein filed his statement of claims alleging that he was working with the respondent-Panchayat since last seven years as daily wage labourer and his service was terminated with effect from 21.04.1984 without following any procedure prescribed by law. The petitioner also alleged breach of Sections 25(F), 25(G) and 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. The reference was contested by the respondent-Panchayat by filing its written statement. The respondent-Panchayat contended that the petitioner was engaged purely on temporary and ad-hoc basis as a daily wage labourer and he had worked for 44 days from 1977-78, for 77 days from 1978-79, for 159 days from 1979-80, for 26 days during 1981-82 and in any of the years during which the petitioner was engaged and he had never completed work for 240 days. 5. The respondent also claimed that the petitioner had raised the dispute after almost 17 years from the date of termination inasmuch as the petitioner alleged that the services were terminated in the year 1984 whereas the dispute was raised in 2002. 6. Further, the respondent had also placed on record certain documents from which it was conclusively demonstrated that though the petitioner alleged that he was orally terminated w.e.f. 21.04.1984 in fact the petitioner had worked from 03.12.1984 to 21.12.1994 as well. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that his services were terminated with effect from 21.04.1984 was not correct and it was disproved. 7. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that his services were terminated with effect from 21.04.1984 was not correct and it was disproved. 7. The Labour Court, after taking into account the material available on record found that the date of termination alleged by the petitioner was incorrect and consequently the allegation about oral termination with effect from 21.04.1984 cannot be believed. The learned Court therefore rejected the reference. 8. The Labour Court has noticed the fact that the petitioner was not terminated with effect from 21.04.1984 as alleged by the petitioner and the petitioner could not prove what he alleged to be the fact i.e he could not prove the date on which he was allegedly terminated. 9. From the document produced by the respondent the labour Court has derived that the petitioner had not worked for 240 days during the proceeding 12 months from the date on which the petitioner alleged that he was terminated and that therefore, the petitioner failed to establish the breach of Section 25(F) as alleged. 10. Neither before the labour Court nor before this Court the petitioner could prove that in the immediately preceding 12 months he had put-in work for 240 days. IN fact the labour Court also found that in the preceding 12 months the petitioner's attendance was Nil . The labour Court has, from the petitioner's oral evidence also marked that the aforesaid fact was even admitted by petitioner. Neither from the material on the record before Labour Court nor from any other material also the petitioner could demonstrate that the findings of the trial Court are contrary to evidence on record. 11. The petitioner also could not produce any evidence before the Labour Court to demonstrate that his termination was effected by committing breach of or in violation of seniority list. 12. No evidence was produced on record by the petitioner to demonstrate that he was senior to other workmen and yet his service was terminated. 13. After recording that the petitioner failed to establish any of the aforesaid relevant aspects, the Labour Court has recorded the finding that the workman failed to prove his allegation about breach of Sections 25(F) and 25(G). 14. 13. After recording that the petitioner failed to establish any of the aforesaid relevant aspects, the Labour Court has recorded the finding that the workman failed to prove his allegation about breach of Sections 25(F) and 25(G). 14. Besides the aforesaid conclusions, the Labour Court has also recorded that the petitioner did not produce any evidence on record to demonstrate that after his service was terminated, any other persons were recruited and employed and he was not given chance of employment. The Labour Court has, therefore recorded finding that the petitioner failed to establish breach of Section 25(H). 15. As a result of aforesaid findings and cumulative effect of the said findings, the Labour Court found that the petitioner failed to establish his case and also failed to establish justification for granting the relief prayed for. 16. Thus, from the award it emerges that the Labour Court has not rejected the reference only on the ground of delay in raising the industrial dispute. The delay caused in raising industrial dispute, was substantial inasmuch as it was of almost 17 years and on that basis the labour Court could have considered that after such a long span the dispute was not alive and was a closed chapter and could have refused to reopen it, however, that is not the sole factor on which the decision of Labour Court is made, but it is only after examining the matter on merits that the Labour Court has recorded findings of fact that on all grounds, the petitioner failed to establish any of his allegation. Consequently, the Labour Court rejected the reference. 17. The petitioner has failed to bring to the notice of this Court any evidence from the record before the Labour Court or even any other material which would show that the findings of the Labour Court are against the evidence on record or against settled legal position. 18. Before this Court also the petitioner could not explain or justify the delay and could not show any material from which it can even be inferred that in preceding 12 months he had worked for 240 days or that after his termination any new persons were engaged or that while he was terminated, his junior were retained. 19. In absence on any evidence, the petitioner cannot expect to succeed. 19. In absence on any evidence, the petitioner cannot expect to succeed. Not only the said allegations about breach of provisions could not be established, but the petitioner also could not prove the alleged termination as well since the record showed his presence even after the alleged date of termination. 20. Thus, on overall consideration of the matter it emerges that the petitioner has failed to conclusively assail any of the findings of the Labour Court and has also failed to make out any case for interference with the impugned award. Hence the petition fails. This petition is rejected.