Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 323 (GUJ)

Indravadan N. Adhvaryu v. Laxminarayan Dev Trust

2010-07-27

K.S.JHAVERI

body2010
JUDGMENT : K.S. JHAVERI, J. 1. This petition is directed against the judgment and award dated 3rd, December 2009 passed by Labour Court, Nadiad in Reference (LCN) No. 842 of 1990 whereby the reference of the Petitioner has been rejected. 2. According to the Petitioner, he was appointed by the Respondent on 1st March, 1977 after following proper procedure in Dholera Swaminarayan Temple of the Respondent Trust. The Respondent transferred the Petitioner on 29th May, 1980 to Uttar Pradesh in Padhari Temple. According to the Petitioner he was then permitted to work at Dholera for some time and then transferred to Vadtal Kanam Charotar Vahivat of the Respondent Trust. The Petitioner therefore filed a civil suit which came to be withdrawn. According to the Petitioner he was not permitted to join at transferred place and he was orally terminated with effect from 1st November 1989 without following due procedure. He therefore raised a dispute which was referred to Labour Court, Nadiad which was numbered as Reference (LCN) No. 842 of 1990. The said reference came to be dismissed which is challenged in this petition. 3. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that he was permanent employee; that he had completed 250 days of continuous service; that his services came to be terminated without following proper procedure and therefore there is violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. 4. Learned Advocate for the Respondent submitted that the Respondent is not an industry as defined in the Act and that the Petitioner had not resumed his duty at the transferred place. 5. At this stage it is required to be noted the definition of industry as contained in Section 2(gg), (j) of the Act: "Industry" means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen. 6. According to the Petitioners the Respondent institution is not an industry and it does not carrying on any activity of business, trade or manufacturing. The activities of the Respondent are on voluntary basis and for religious purpose and it cannot be treated as an industry. From the evidence of the Petitioner itself the aforesaid facts are clear and therefore the contention of the Respondent is required to be accepted. The activities of the Respondent are on voluntary basis and for religious purpose and it cannot be treated as an industry. From the evidence of the Petitioner itself the aforesaid facts are clear and therefore the contention of the Respondent is required to be accepted. Further, the Petitioner himself has not joined at the transferred place and instead he had challenged the said order and later on withdrew the suit. The Petitioner has also failed to prove that he has worked 240 days continuously prior to 1st November, 1989. Therefore there is no breach of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. The Labour Court has discussed the matter threadbare and has come to the conclusion that the Respondent is not an industry as per the definition of industry and there is no breach of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the Labour Court. In any case the alleged termination is of the year 1989 and it would not be in the interest of justice to interfere with the same after almost 21 years. 7. In the premises aforesaid I do not find any merits in the petition. The same is therefore dismissed notice is discharged with no order as to costs. 8. Before parting it is required to be noted that the Labour Court had offered lump sum compensation which the Petitioner has declined. Even this Court has offered lump sum compensation and again the Petitioner has declined to accept the same.