Gujarat High Court
Vinod M Solanki vs Lic Of India & on 8 April, 2013
Author: Paresh Upadhyay
Bench: Paresh Upadhyay
VINOD M SOLANKI....Petitioner(s)V/SLIC OF INDIA C/SCA/17470/2012 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17470 of 2012 ================================================================ VINOD M SOLANKI....Petitioner Versus LIC OF INDIA & ANR....Respondents ================================================================ Appearance: MR P. C. CHAUDHARI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner MR YOGI K. GADHIA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent No. 2 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY Date : 08/04/2013 ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr.P.C.Chaudhari, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Yogi K. Gadhia, learned advocate for the respondent Corporation.
Challenge in this petition is made to the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - Cum- Labour Court at Rajkot in Reference No. CGITA of 17 / 2006 (Reference No.ITC. 34/ 2007 - Old), dated 14.08.2012, whereby the Reference was rejected.
3. The petitioner had approached the Labour Forum, where the terms of Reference was as under:
Whether the action of the Senior Division Manager, LIC of India Ltd., Rajkot Division, and through its Officers in terminating/ discontinuance/ not engaging Sh. Vinod N. Solanki, Assistant at the Dhoraji Branch w.e.f. 31.03.1990 is valid, legal and justified? If not, to what benefits the said workman is entitled?
The Labour Court framed following issues.
(I) Whether the reference is maintainable ?
(II) Whether the workman (second party) has valid cause of action to raise this dispute?
(III) Whether the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are applicable to the first party LIC of India Ltd. or not? Whether this tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute referred by the Appropriate Government?
(IV) Whether the second party workman has worked for more than 240 days in the calender year preceding his termination?
(V) Whether the first party had violated the provision of Section 25(F), 25(G) and 25(H) of the ID Act, 1947?
(VI) Whether the action of the management of LIC of India Ltd., Rajkot Division in terminating/ discontinuance/ not engaging the workman Shri Vinod N. Solanki Assistant at Dhoraji Branch w.e.f.
31.03.1990 is justified and valid?
(VII) Whether the second party workman is entitled to the relief of reinstatement with back wages as claimed?
(VIII) What orders are to be passed?
5. For the purpose of this petition, Issue Nos. (I) to (IV) would be relevant and Issue Nos.(V) to (VIII) are consequential. So far as Issue Nos.(I) to (III) are concerned, the same are not against the petitioner and that does not take case of the petitioner any further. Learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner had completed more than 240 days and that the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement and according to the learned advocate for the petitioner there was ample material to arrive at that finding. Without prejudice to that contention, it is alternatively contended by learned advocate for the petitioner that even if it is accepted, for the sake of argument, that the petitioner had not completed 240 days of work, according to him, there was violation of provisions of Sections 25(G) and 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') and therefore on that count also the Labour Court ought to have granted relief to the petitioner.
6. Learned advocate for the petitioner has also relied upon the following authorities in support of his case.
(i) AIR 1996 SC 216 in case of Central Bank of India versus S. Satyam and others;
2005(3) LLJ Madras, in case of Manager (P&A), Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Chennai versus G. Radhakrishnan;
1993(1) CLR 205, in case of Oriental Bank of Commerce versus Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal and another
7. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent Corporation has contended that the Industrial Tribunal, by the impugned award, has not committed any illegality and more particularly in view of the finding of fact arrived at by it, no interference be made by this Court. Learned advocate for the respondent Corporation, in support of his contentions, has relied upon the following authorities.
AIR 1994 SC 544, in case of M. Venugopal versus Life Insurance Corporation of India, Machilipatnam, A.P. and another;
(2003)2 GHJ 397, in case of Halvad Nagarpalika and others vs. Jani Dipakbhai Chandravadanbhai and others;
2006(108) FLR 699, in case of Ayurvedic Officer versus Jerambhai Kavabhai Vala;
2006(108) FLR 704, in case of Lallubhai Bapujibhai Parmar versus Panchmahal District Panchayat;
2009(1) CLR 375, in case of Manjulaben Kalabhai Zinzuwadiya versus Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board;
(vi) 2007 (1) CLR 513, in case of Arunaben Atmaram Dudhrejiya and 16 others versus Union of India & 4 others
8. Both the learned advocates have taken the Court extensively through the record of the Labour Court which is on record of this petition.
9. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the record, more particularly, the reasoning recorded by the Labour Court, I find that the case of the petitioner himself before the Labour Court, as contained in Exhibit 20, was to the effect that he had not completed 240 days. The said document (Exh.20) is on record, which is dated 05.04.1990 and relevant portion of the same reads as under:
Dtd.
5-4-1990 To, The Central Manager Saheb, Sub:-
Regarding Payment of Salary.
With respect it is stated that I have worked at Dhoraji Branch of Rajkot (WZ) Division on the below stated period.
From 12-9-1988 to 28-11-998 78 days 29-11-1988 to 4-12-1988 6 days 5-12-1988 to 31-1-1989 58 days 142 days During 29 -11- 1988 to 4-12-1988 i.e. 6 days salary have not been paid to me. During that period I had worked in Account department in the Office. So I request your good self to pay the salary.
Thanking You, Yours faithfully Sd/-(V.M.Solanki)
10. The Labour Court in paragraph-14 of the impugned award, specifically came to the conclusion, that too after evaluating evidence produced before it, that the petitioner had not completed 240 days of work. In this factual background, when this was the case of the petitioner and when even on the basis of material, which was produced before the Labour Court, the Labour Court, as the fact finding authority, came to this conclusion, on the bone contention of the petitioner, in my view, no error can be found in the finding arrived at by the Labour Court and the same needs to be rejected and is rejected.
11. The alternate argument of learned advocate for the petitioner is that even if it is accepted that, on bone contention the Labour Court has not committed any error, still the Labour Court fell in error in not appreciating the fact that there was ample material on record to hold that there was breach of provisions of Section 25(G) and 25(H) of the Act. In this regard, detailed discussion is made by the Labour Court. The specific discussion and finding is in paragraphs-15 and 16 of the impugned award. Having gone through the record, more particularly reasoning recorded in paragraphs 15 and 16, which is a finding of fact arrived at by the Labour Court, I see no reason to interfere in the same, in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. The judgments cited by learned advocate for the petitioner will not have any applicability in the facts of this case.
12. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.
(PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) Amit/18 Page 6 of 6