Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 64 (GUJ)

Upendrakumar Pravinbhai Patel v. Chairman, Undel Doodh Utpadan Sahakari Mandli Ltd

2025-02-04

M.R.MENGDEY

body2025
JUDGMENT : M. K. Thakker, J. 1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India thereby challenging the award passed by learned Labour Court, Anand in Reference (T) No. 7 of 2021 passed below Exhibit 49 dated 06.02.2024, whereby the reference filed by the present petitioner came to be rejected. 2. It is case of the present petitioner that he was appointed with the respondent - Mandali on 01.06.2012 on the post of Krutirm Viryadan Karmachari, his appointment was made by the Mandali by passing the Resolution and he served with the Mandali up to 25.08.2019 and thereafter on 26.08.2019 his service was disengaged by the respondent – Mandali. The dispute was raised before learned Conciliation Officer, Anand and thereafter it was referred to the learned Labour Court, Anand which was registered as a Reference (T) No.7 of 2021. The present petitioner has submitted the statement of the claim against which the written statement was filed by the respondent and learned Labour Court, after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties and the submissions, has rejected the reference which is the subject matter of the challenge before this Court. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Modi for the petitioner. 3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Modi submits that learned Trial Court has failed to consider the aspect that petitioner has served from 01.6.2012 to 25.08.2019 continuously and has completed 240 days of service in a preceding year. Learned advocate Mr. Modi submits that without following due procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in violation of the provision under section 25(F) the service of the present petitioner was terminated. Learned advocate Mr. Modi submits that while dismissing the reference, learned Labour Court has assigned the reasons that petitioner failed to make fresh application for the appointment and therefore, his service was put to an end. Learned advocate Mr. Modi submits that the petitioner was serving since 2012 to 2019, however, on none of the occasions such type of applications were filed. Learned advocate Mr. Modi submits that learned Labour Court has believed the statement of the respondent that the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis and therefore, the service of the petitioner does not fall in the definition of the retrenchment. Learned Labour Court, without relying on the evidence adduced in the above submission, has concluded the reference against the present petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Learned Labour Court, without relying on the evidence adduced in the above submission, has concluded the reference against the present petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Modi submits that for the period of 7 years when no contract was executed or extended and the petitioner has served without any break before terminating the services, the procedure prescribed under the Act is required to be followed. Learned advocate Mr. Modi summits that learned Labour Court has also assigned the reasons that the brother of the petitioner is one of the directors and therefore, the petitioner cannot be continued as per the by-laws of the Mandali. Learned advocate Mr. Modi submits that when the petitioner has served for more than 7 years, no question arises to terminate the service on the ground that his brother is one of the directors. In view of the above facts and submissions, learned advocate Mr. Modi requested to allow this petition and to direct respondent – Mandali to reinstate the service of the petitioner with all consequential benefits. 4. Having considered the arguments made by learned advocate Mr. Modi and reasons assigned by learned Labour Court in the impugned award, it is undisputed fact that the petitioner has worked as Krutirm Viryadan Karmachari from 01.06.2012. Reliance is placed by the petitioner on the Resolution to show that appointment was made by the Mandali on 26.10.2019. On referring the above Resolution, it transpires that the petitioner along with other person, namely, Patel Pareshbhaibhai Gopalbhai was sent for the training on the work of the Krutirm Viryadan. It is clarified in the above Resolution that expenses would be borne by the trainee themselves, this Resolution does not show that the appointment is made on the post of Krutirm Viryadan Karmachari, however, the Mandali has sent the petitioner for the training of above purpose. In absence of any order or any evidence, it cannot be said that the petitioner was appointed from 26.10.2019 on the said post. So far as the termination, as alleged by the petitioner herein on 23.06.2019, is concerned, this Court has referred the evidence of the petitioner in the cross-examination wherein, he admitted that as per the Resolution the petitioner was sent with the Amul Diary for the training purpose of Krutirm Viryadan. So far as the termination, as alleged by the petitioner herein on 23.06.2019, is concerned, this Court has referred the evidence of the petitioner in the cross-examination wherein, he admitted that as per the Resolution the petitioner was sent with the Amul Diary for the training purpose of Krutirm Viryadan. It is also admitted that as per the instructions and the information of the Mandali, the petitioner used to visit the place for Krutirm Viryadan. It is admitted by the present petitioner that his name was not reflected in the presence roster or on the wage register. The question was put that what was the monthly wages of the petitioner wherein, answer was given that wages were paid on voucher and he was paid Rs.500/- addition to Rs.5000/- monthly on per camp. There was no fix wages decided by the petitioner and the respondent - Mandali as per the evidence during the cross examination. It is also admitted that whatever the work done for the Krutirm Viryadan but on submitting report, Mandali used to pay the amount. It is also admitted that that amount is made once in a year and that payment is done by the Amul Diary in the account of the Mandali and Mandali used to pay the same to the petitioner. It is also admitted that neither any bonus or any benefits were paid by the respondent to the petitioner. It is admitted that petitioner used to work of Krutirm Viryadan in the separate office in the building of the respondent - Mandali and as and when any phone call received by the members of the Mandali for the Krutirm Viryadan, he used to visit that place. As per the admission of the petitioner, previously he used to make a report, however, subsequently he used to do the same online system. Mark 9/1, wherein contact number of petitioners is mentioned was reflected to see that the visit to the Amul Diary can be booked easily. It is admitted by the petitioner during the cross- examination that for the Krutirm Viryadan, the petitioner was informed through the Circular, however, none of such Circulars were placed on record. It is also admitted that if the said Krutirm Viryadan process is completed successfully, then and then only, the petitioner was getting the wages. It is admitted by the petitioner during the cross- examination that for the Krutirm Viryadan, the petitioner was informed through the Circular, however, none of such Circulars were placed on record. It is also admitted that if the said Krutirm Viryadan process is completed successfully, then and then only, the petitioner was getting the wages. It is admitted that in the year 2019 whoever wishes to do the work of Krutirm Viryadan, the Mandali has called for the application that application is not done by the present petitioner and therefore, no work was allotted of Krutirm Viryadan to the present petitioner. It is admitted by the petitioner that the Mandali used to call the application since 2012, however, he never preferred any application. It is also admitted that the Liquid Nitrogen Bottles and Injections for the Krutirm Viryadan are lying with the petitioner and the same has not been deposited with the Mandali. Mark 16/3 is the Resolution where petitioner was discharged from the work of the Krutirm Viryadan. In addition to that, petitioner had also admitted that as per the cooperative laws, no relatives of the director can serve with the Mandali. 4.1 From above admissions, it transpires that the work from the petitioner was taken by the Mandali for the purpose of Krutirm Viryadan and therefore, he was sent for the training with the Amul Diary on his own expenses, in absence of any fixed wages and any other benefits which was admitted not taken by the petitioner, Learned Labour Court concluded reference against the present petitioner by holding that the appointment was purely on contractual basis and as petitioner fails to make an application in the year 2019, no further work was allotted to the petitioner and therefore, the service of the petitioner was disengaged. This Court is of the view that learned Labour Court has not committed any error in holding the fact that the contractual appointment was not further extended as there was no any application given and therefore, this Court does not find any merits in the submission of the learned advocate Mr Modi. 5. In view of the same, the present petition is deserved to be dismissed. 6. Resultantly, present petition is dismissed.