Gujarat High Court
Jadubhai Shankerbhai vs Dhrangadhra Chemical Works on 20 January, 2014
Author: M.R.Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah
C/SCA/18709/2006 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18709 of 2006
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18710 of 2006
TO
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18716 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any
order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
================================================================
JADUBHAI SHANKERBHAI....Petitioner(s)
Versus
DHRANGADHRA CHEMICAL WORKS....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR ANAND L SHARMA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PS GOGIA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Page 1 of 6
C/SCA/18709/2006 JUDGMENT
Date : 20/01/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1] As common question of law and fact arise in this group of petitions, all these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment and order.
[2] By way of these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the respective petitioners - workmen have prayed to quash and set aside the impugned common judgment and award dated 10.02.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference (LCS) No.169 of 2000 by which the learned Labour Court has rejected the said Reference.
[3] All the respective petitioners - workmen were appointed and serving as Badali workers in the Bromine Plant, Kuda of the respondent - Dhrangadhra Chemical Works. That Bromine Plant, Kuda was seasonal undertaking and as and when bittern stock was available at Bromine Plant, Kuda, the same was functioning. It appears that the Bromine Plant, Kuda was working only 90 days in a year. That by notice dated 18.05.1999 (Ex.17), an information was displayed on notice board that due to non-availability of raw material stock, the Bromine Plant, Kuda is closed and the respective badli workers were informed that as and when bittern stock is available, the prior intimation will be put on notice board that the Bromine Plant, Kuda would be reopened and consequently, all the respective petitioners - workmen came to be relieved. Thereafter, all the workmen raised the industrial disputes which was referred to the Labour Court, Surendranagar which was common numbered as Reference (LCS) No.169 of 2000. That on appreciation of evidence, the learned Labour Court has held that there is no violation and/or breach of section 25(f), (g) and (h) of the Industrial Disputes Act and, Page 2 of 6 C/SCA/18709/2006 JUDGMENT therefore, by impugned common judgment and award, the learned Labour Court has rejected the said Reference.
[4] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 10.02.2004 passed by the learned Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference (LCS) No.169 of 2000, the respective workmen have preferred present Special Civil Applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
[5] Mr.Anand Sharma, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respective workmen has vehemently submitted that the learned Labour Court has materially erred in rejecting the Reference by holding that at the time of relieving the workmen, there was no breach of section 25(g) or (h) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is submitted that as such, though the petitioners - workmen were permanent employees, they were branded as badali workers. It is submitted that as per the earlier 2P settlement, in case of necessity of retrenchment, the workmen were required to be transferred to other department. It is submitted that assuming that due to non- availability of bittern stock, Bromine Plant, Kuda was required to be closed, the respective workmen were required to be transferred to other department. It is submitted that while rejecting the reference, the learned Labour Court has not appreciated the aforesaid facts.
[6] Making the above submissions, it is requested to allow the present Special Civil Applications and consequently allow the Reference by directing the respondent to reinstate the workmen.
[7] All these petitions are opposed by Mr.P. G. Gogai, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. It is submitted that as such, all the petitioners - workmen were serving as badali workers at Bromine Plant, Kuda which was a seasonal plant / unit. It is submitted that as such, the Bromine Plant, Kuda was functioning and working only for 90 days in a year and the contention on behalf of the Page 3 of 6 C/SCA/18709/2006 JUDGMENT petitioners - workmen that they worked for more than 120 days is rightly not accepted by the Labour Court. It is submitted that no 2P settlement was not entered into between the petitioners workmen and the respondent. It is submitted that as such Reference I.T. No.1/1995 preferred by the petitioners - workmen for their permanency and regularization in services has been rejected by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, vide judgment and award dated 10.02.2004. It is submitted that the contention on behalf of the petitioners - workmen that as such, they were permanent employees and they were wrongly described as badali workers, cannot be accepted now. By making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present Special Civil Applications.
[8] Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. At the outset, it is required to be noted that all the petitioners - workmen were working at Bromine Plant at Kuda of the respondent which was a seasonal undertaking and was in operation only for 90 days in a year. It appears that at the relevant time, the bittern stock was not available and therefore, Bromine Plant was required to be closed and, therefore, vide notice dated 18.05.1999, the respective petitioners were informed that Bromine Plant at Kuda, would be closed from second shift and the respective petitioners were also informed that as and when bittern stock is available, Bromine Plat at Kuda would be reopened and notice to that effect would be displayed on the notice board. In the evidence, the respective workmen have specifically admitted that even at the time of recording evidence / depositions, the Bromine Plant, Kuda was not reopened. Considering the fact that Bromine Plant at Kuda, where the respective workmen were working was, in operation only for 90 days in a year and it was a seasonal undertaking, the learned Labour Court has rightly held that there is no breach of section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act as the respective petitioners have failed to prove that they have worked for not less than 240 days in a year, but Page 4 of 6 C/SCA/18709/2006 JUDGMENT they have also failed to prove that they have worked for 120 days in a year. Aforesaid finding of fact given by the Labour Court which is on appreciation of evidence. There is no breach of section 25(g) or (h) of Industrial Disputes Act. It is required to be noted that in the cross- examination, it is specifically admitted by the workmen that Bromine Plant was not reopened. Considering the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the Labour Court has committed any error in rejecting the Reference.
[9] So far as the contention on behalf of the petitioners that as such, they were regular and permanent employees, however, they were wrongly described as badli workers is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such, with regard to the regularization and permanency respective petitioners raised the Industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal being Reference (I.T.) No.1/1995 and it is reported that by judgment and award, the Industrial Tribunal has rejected the said reference. Under the circumstances, the contention on behalf of the petitioners - workmen that they were regular and permanent employees and/or they were wrongly described as the badli workers cannot be accepted.
[10] Now so far as the contention on behalf of the petitioners - workmen that there was 2P settlement under which it was agreed by the Company that in case there was likelihood of retrenchment due to no work, in that case they were required to be transferred to another department, is concerned, it is required to be noted that the 2P of settlement would not be applicable to the badli workers at Bomin Plant, Kuda, as the said plant was working only for 90 days in a year.
[11] Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no any error has been committed by the learned Labour Court in rejecting the reference which calls for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Considering the aforesaid, all these petitions deserve to be dismissed and are Page 5 of 6 C/SCA/18709/2006 JUDGMENT accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged in each petition. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated. No costs.
(M.R.SHAH, J.) vijay Page 6 of 6