Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Jitubhai Haribhai Joshi & on 16 July, 2015
Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt
Bench: S.R.Brahmbhatt
C/SCA/10303/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10303 of 2015
======================================
STATE OF GUJARAT....Petitioner
Versus
JITUBHAI HARIBHAI JOSHI & 1....Respondents
======================================
Appearance:
MR. DEVANG DAVE, AGP for the Petitioner
======================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date : 16/07/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned AGP for the petitioner. The petitioner, who happened to be the first party employer in Reference (LCJ) No.18 of 2005 in the Labour Court of Junagadh, has approached this Court by way of this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order and award dated 13th March 2015, wherein the Court had partly allowed the reference and declared that the action of termination of services on 26th May 2004 was bad, illegal and hence required to be quashed and set aside and the workman was ordered to be reinstated without backwages with cost of Rs.1,000/.
2. The facts in brief, as could be culledout from the proceedings, indicate that the respondentworkman was engaged as labourer in the department since 1990 and without giving any reasons, his service came to be terminated on 26th May 2004. Thus, the workman had put a continuous service of 14 years. While terminating his services, the petitioner retained the juniors. The workman issued demand for reinstatement and raised dispute, which was referred to competent Page 1 of 3 C/SCA/10303/2015 ORDER Court, wherein it was marked as Reference (LCJ) No.18 of 2005. The Court after framing issues with regard to the legality of action dated 26 th May 2004, examined the entire record and witnesses and discussed the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947 and came to the conclusion that the action of termination being illegal and was required to be quashed and set aside. However, while quashing and setting aside the order of termination and passing the order of reinstatement of the workman, the Court did not thought it fit to grant any backwages. That award and order is a subject matter of challenge in this petition, as stated hereinabove.
3. Learned AGP vehemently contended that the order is erroneous and therefore, this Court is calledupon to interfere therewith.
4. Learned AGP appearing for the petitionerState, thereafter contended that the workman had not been engaged after following the due procedure of law and therefore, on that ground also the order impugned is required to be quashed and set aside. The workman was merely engaged for doing daily wage job, therefore, he could not be ordered to be reinstated.
5. This Court is unable to agree with the submissions canvassed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the award in question. The Court has perused the award closely and it is emerging therefrom that the workman successfully established breach of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947 and therefore, the order of reinstatement could not have been said to be illegal in any manner. The workman laid evidences in support of his case and those evidences are impactable and therefore, the Court had to come to the conclusion that the order of termination being bad, which required to be quashed and set aside. The workman established unequivocally that he had completed 240 days in the given year and rather he was continuous in service from 1990 to 2004. In Page 2 of 3 C/SCA/10303/2015 ORDER view of these facts and circumstances, there appears to be no case for interference with the order impugned.
6. As a result thereof, the petition being meritless, deserves rejection and is accordingly rejected. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) Rathod...
Page 3 of 3