Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 68 (GUJ)

Sarpanch v. Ajaybhai Andabhai Chauhan

2017-01-13

K.M.THAKER

body2017
JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. None present for the petitioner. Mr. Mankad, learned advocate for respondent is present. 2. In present petition, the petitioner-Sarpanch, Chotila Gram Panchayat, has placed under challenge the award dated 22.05.2007 passed by learned Labour Court at Surendranagar in Reference(LCS) No. 125 of 2005 whereby learned Labour Court directed present petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service on his original post without backwages. 3. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record that present respondent raised industrial dispute with the allegation that the opponent Panchayat illegally terminated his services with effect from 04.07.2005. With such allegations, he demanded that he should be reinstated in service. Appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the learned Labour Court at Surendranagar. The dispute was registered in Reference (LCS) No. 125 of 2005. In his statement of claim, the claimant alleged and claimed that he was employed by the Panchayat since last 3 years as labourer with salary of Rs. 2600/- per month and that during his tenure he worked for more than 240 days in each year. However, without any fault on his part, Panchayat terminated his services by oral order/instruction, on 04.07.2005. With such allegation, he demanded that he should be reinstated with consequential benefits. 4. The Panchayat opposed the reference and the demand by the claimant. In its written statement, Panchayat claimed that the applicant was engaged on ad hoc and daily wage basis for temporary period and on need basis and that he never worked with Panchayat on regular basis. The Panchayat also claimed in any year the claimant had not worked for 240 days and that, therefore, his demand is unjustified. The Panchayat also claimed that his appointment was irregular and the claimant has not right to continue in service. 5. After contesting parties concluded the pleadings and evidence, learned Labour Court heard rival submissions. After considering rival submissions of the contesting parties, learned Labour Court decided the Reference with above mentioned directions. 6. After considering material on record, the learned Labour Court reached to the finding that the claimant had worked for more than 12 months and that the claimant had worked for 240 days. The learned Labour Court also reached to the conclusion that the panchayat had undisputedly not complied with the condition prescribed by section 25F. 6. After considering material on record, the learned Labour Court reached to the finding that the claimant had worked for more than 12 months and that the claimant had worked for 240 days. The learned Labour Court also reached to the conclusion that the panchayat had undisputedly not complied with the condition prescribed by section 25F. The learned Labour Court has also mentioned in the award that the panchayat failed to place any document on record to support its case. The learned Labour Court also held that the panchayat failed to prove that the panchayat had observed principle of last-come-first-go. Having considered material on record, the learned Labour Court reached to the finding that the panchayat committed breach of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H. Since the Court, on appreciation of evidence, reached to such finding of fact, the learned Labour Court considered it appropriate to direct the panchayat to reinstate the claimant. However, having regard to the total tenure of service of the claimant and evidence available on record, the learned Labour Court also reached to the decision that the case of the claimant was not fit case to award any backwages. Therefore, the learned Labour Court rejected the demand for backwages. 7. I have considered the contention raised in the memo of petition and I have also considered the submissions by Mr. Mankad, learned advocate for the respondent as well as the observations and findings recorded by the learned Labour Court in the impugned award. 8. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to mention, at the outset, that learned advocate for the respondent, during his submission, stated that panchayat has, in compliance of the interim order and direction, reinstated present respondent and the respondent is in service with the panchayat since 16.10.2007. Thus, now, more than 9 years have passed since the claimant came to be reinstated after the learned Labour Court passed the award. 9. On consideration of the reasons recorded by the learned Labour Court in the award, it has emerged that there is no justification to disturb the award and to interfere with the direction passed by the learned Labour Court. 9.1 The final directions passed by the learned Labour Court are based on evidence which was available before the Court and in light of the decision on which reliance was placed by the contesting parties. 9.1 The final directions passed by the learned Labour Court are based on evidence which was available before the Court and in light of the decision on which reliance was placed by the contesting parties. 9.2 On examination of the award, it comes out that the learned Labour Court has not committed any error of law or jurisdiction. 9.3 In light of the observations by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim and others, [ AIR 1984 SC 38 ] and M/s. Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. v. Krishna Kant Pandey [2015 AIR SCW 634], there is no basis or justification to interfere with the finding of facts recorded by the learned Labour Court. 9.4 The petitioner has failed to make out any ground against the award passed by the learned Labour Court. 9.5 In that view of the matter coupled with the fact that the claimant is in service with the panchayat since October 2007, there is no justification to disturb the said position and/or to disturb the award. Therefore, following order is passed. 10. In light of the foregoing discussion and above mentioned reasons, the petition does not deserve to be entertained. Therefore, the petition is not accepted and it is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.