Gujarat High Court
Prabhulal Premjibhai Patel vs Welsafe Engineering Company on 13 June, 2016
Author: Paresh Upadhyay
Bench: Paresh Upadhyay
C/SCA/953/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 953 of 2016
==========================================================
PRABHULAL PREMJIBHAI PATEL ....Petitioner
Versus
WELSAFE ENGINEERING COMPANY ....Respondent
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHOK K PADIA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner
MR GM JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
Date : 13/06/2016
ORAL ORDER
1. Challenge in this petition is made by a workman to the award passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (T) No.1139 of 2001 dated 18.02.2015, whereby the Reference is rejected.
2. Mr.A.K.Padia, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner had worked for years together with the respondent and abruptly his service came to be discontinued on 01.01.2001 and the Labour Court ought to have granted relief of reinstatement. It is submitted that the rejection of the Reference is illegal and this Court may interfere. It is submitted that this petition be entertained.
3. On the other hand, Mr. G.M. Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that, the petitioner could not prove before the Labour Court that he had worked for more Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Sun Jun 19 00:46:18 IST 2016 C/SCA/953/2016 ORDER than 240 days in the year immediately prior to the alleged date of termination and therefore no relief could have been granted. It is submitted that no interference be made by this Court.
4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds that, the workman had to prove that he had completed 240 days continuous service immediately prior to the alleged date of termination. It is a question of fact. The Labour Court has gone into the aspect and the finding is recorded about the fact that the workman could not prove that he had put in 240 days continuous service immediately prior to the alleged date of termination. This Court does not find any infirmity in the award passed by the Labour Court. Therefore, no interference is required. This petition therefore needs to be dismissed.
5. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.
(PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) mhdave/66 Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Sun Jun 19 00:46:18 IST 2016