Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 346 (GUJ)

Ranchhodbhai Nanabhai Parmar v. Managing Director

2010-08-06

K.S.JHAVERI

body2010
Judgment K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged that judgement and award dated 07.02.2000 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (L.C.A.) No. 1486 of 1994 whereby the Labour Court has rejected the reference and dismissed the demand of reinstatement with full backwages. 2. The petitioner was working as Canteen-Boy in the petitioner-Corporation since 15.10.1991. He was initially being paid Rs. 24/- and thereafter Rs. 30/- per day. He was terminated from service in contravention of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act and Section 66 of the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act on 11.10.1993. One Shri Baburam J. Chauhan who was working with the petitioner was absorbed in service as Peron (Waterman), whereas the petitioner was denied. The petitioner therefore, raised disputes before the Labour Court being (L.C.A.) No. 1486 of 1994. The Labour Court after adjudicating the matter, has passed the aforesaid award. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the Labour Court has committed error in rejecting the reference inspite of the fact that he has produced document which established that the petitioner has worked more than 240 days and he continuously worked as a Canteen-boy of the respondent-Corporation. He has also contended that one similarly situated person who is senior to the petitioner was absorbed as a Peon in the respondent-Corporation. Hence, there is clear breach of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He further submitted that there is breach of Section 66 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act and therefore the order of the Labour Court is required to be reversed and the petitioner is required to be absorbed in the respondent-Corporation. 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner relied upon the decision in the case of Principal, S.V. Doshi Girls High School and Anr. vs. Lilaben Somabhai Gadasa reported in 2008 (1) G.L.H, in the case of Employers in relation to the Management of Reserve Bank of India vs. Their workmen reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1241, in the case of Workmen of Nilgiri Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. vs. State of Tamilnadu and other reported in (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 514, in case of Karjan Municipality vs. Shashikant Kamalakar Shukla reported in 2004(3) G.L.H. 23 . 5. Learned Advocate for the respondent has submitted that petitioner was not appointed by due procedure of law by the respondent-Corporation. 5. Learned Advocate for the respondent has submitted that petitioner was not appointed by due procedure of law by the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner was working in the Canteen run by the staff members and he was never employed by the establishment of the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner was paid by one Shri Jatinbhai and was never paid by the respondent-Corporation. 6. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties. As a result of hearing and perusal of the documents on record and the facts which are emerged from the record it is very clear that the petitioner has worked as Canteen boy and he had worked for 285 days in a year. He was cross-examined at length and he was furnished with the document Exh. 16/1 to 16/11 and the vouchers and other documents were shown to him. However, he has denied the same and he has admitted that he was paid on daily wage basis. From the record it seems that Labour Court while coming to the conclusion has considered the evidence. After 01.10.1993 the petitioner was not kept as a Canteen Boy. The petitioner has not completed 240 days on the basis of the voucher. The application for production of documents was rejected. The petitioner in his cross-examination admitted that he was not issued appointment order. It is also found that entry 79A of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 will not apply in the present case. It is only for restricted area and provisions of Section 66 will also not attract even otherwise the petitioner has not worked on permanent basis. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning assigned by the Labour Court. The petition is devoid of merits. The same is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.