Gujarat High Court
Jagdevbarti Shivbharti Goswami vs Gadhada Shamlaji Milk Producers ... on 20 January, 2014
Author: M.R.Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah
C/SCA/16072/2006 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16072 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 ?
======================================
JAGDEVBARTI SHIVBHARTI GOSWAMI....Petitioner(s)
Versus
GADHADA SHAMLAJI MILK PRODUCERS SAHKARI MANDALI
LTD.....Respondent(s)
======================================
Appearance:
MR HARSHAD K PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR JV JAPEE, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
======================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date : 20/01/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 4
C/SCA/16072/2006 JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-workman has questioned the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Himatnagar dated 02/09/2004 in Reference (LCH) No. 495/1996 by which the Labour Court has rejected the said reference.
2. The petitioner was serving with the respondent as a Clerk. He tendered his resignation on 30/06/1992. It appears that thereafter the resignation of the petitioner was accepted by the management and in fact the petitioner was paid the amount of Rs.22,500/- by way of cheque, which the petitioner withdrew. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute through the Maha Gujarat Mazdoor Sang and it was the case on behalf of the petitioner-employee that he has been dismissed from service abruptly and without issuing any dismissal order. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, which was numbered as Reference No. 1687/1993 (Old), which was subsequently re-numbered as Reference (LCH) No. 495/1996. By the impugned judgment and order the Labour Court has dismissed/rejected the Reference by holding that the petitioner tendered the resignation voluntarily and the petitioner has failed to prove and/or establish that the resignation, which was tendered by the petitioner was by coercion and/or pressure. The Labour Court held that as such there are contradictory stand to the effect that in the statement of claim by the Maha Gujarat Mazdoor Sangh his date of dismissal and/or relieving from service is 15/07/1992 and it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has been dismissed from service without passing any order of Page 2 of 4 C/SCA/16072/2006 JUDGMENT dismissal. However, in the subsequent statement of claim dated 13/07/1994, it was the specific case on behalf of the petitioner that he has been relieved from service by accepting his resignation dated 30/06/1992. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award rejecting the Reference the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Shri Harshad Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has failed to satisfy the Court how the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court rejecting the Reference and the finding given by the Labour Court that the resignation tendered by the petitioner was voluntary and/or the finding given by the Labour Court that the petitioner has failed to establish and prove that the resignation of the petitioner was not by coersion and/or under duress and/or under pressure is erroneous.
4. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court rejecting the Reference. The finding given by the Labour Court that the petitioner has failed to establish and/or prove that his resignation was under
coersion and/or pressure is on appreciation of evidence, which is neither perverse nor contrary on record. Once it is held that the petitioner tendered the resignation voluntarily and/or accepted Rs.22,500/- at the time of the resignation and the resignation of the petitioner, which was tendered was neither under compulsion and/or pressure and, thereafter after accepting the resignation when the petitioner was relieved from service, it cannot be said that there was any breach of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, Page 3 of 4 C/SCA/16072/2006 JUDGMENT the Labour Court has rightly rejected the Reference, which is not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present petition fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(M.R.SHAH, J.) Siji Page 4 of 4