Gujarat High Court
Vijaykumar Hiralal Solanki vs Public Works And Health ... on 20 January, 2014
Author: M.R.Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah
C/SCA/17154/2006 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17154 of 2006
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17155 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Sd/-
===========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to NO
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of NO
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of NO
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 ? NO
================================================================
VIJAYKUMAR HIRALAL SOLANKI....Petitioner(s)
Versus
PUBLIC WORKS AND HEALTH DEPTT.GUJ.WATER SUPPLY &
SEW.BOARD & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR DS VASAVADA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR BHARAT T RAO, 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
1.00. As common question of facts and law arise in both Page 1 of 5 C/SCA/17154/2006 JUDGMENT these petitions, they are being heard, decided and disposed of by this common judgement and order.
2.00. Special Civil Application No. 17154 of 2005 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner herein - workman to quash and set aside the impugned Judgement and Order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Palanpur in Reference (LCP) No.9 of 2000 by which the learned Judge has rejected the said Reference denying the reinstatement and back wages, as prayed.
2.01. Special Civil Application No. 17155 of 2005 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner herein - workman to quash and set aside the impugned Judgement and Order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Palanpur in Reference (LCP) No.24 of 2000, by which the learned Judge has rejected the said Reference and has not granted the relief of reinstatement and back wages, as prayed.
2.02. That both the petitioners herein were serving with the respondent as Pump Operator-cum-Line Operator on purely temporary basis on the fixed monthly salary of Rs.1800/- per month. That they worked for few months and that too few days in a month. That as the work for which they were appointed was completed, they were not called for the duties. That both the petitioners thereafter raised industrial dispute challenging their alleged termination on the ground that their termination is in breach of section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act. That the Reference was opposed by the respondent Page 2 of 5 C/SCA/17154/2006 JUDGMENT submitting that as such there was no breach of section 25F and 25G of the ID Act, as alleged. It was submitted that as and when the work was available, the petitioners were called for duty as daily wagers. It was specifically denied that any of the petitioners have completed 240 days in the preceding year. It was specific case of the respondent that no junior to the petitioner has been continued in service.
2.03. That on appreciation of evidence, more particularly, considering the fact that the respective petitioners had not completed 240 days in the preceding year and considering the deposition of the workmen - cross-examination specifically admitting that no juniors to the petitioners have been continued in service, by the impugned judgement and order, the learned Labour court has rejected the said References holding that there is no breach of section 25F and 25G of the ID Act, as alleged.
2.04. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgement and Awards passed by the Labour Court, Palanpur, respective petitioners workmen have preferred both these Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3.00. Heard Mr.D.S. Vasavada, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners and Mr.Bharat Rao, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and perused the impugned judgement and award passed by the learned Labour Court as well as documentary evidence on record.
Page 3 of 5C/SCA/17154/2006 JUDGMENT 3.01. At the outset, it is required to be noted that both the petitioners were appointed and serving as Rojamdar in the year 1998. As soon as the work was completed, they were not called for the duties. It has come on record that the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 17154 of 2006 worked only for 153 days during the period from 4/5/1998 to 11/4/1999. It has also come on record that in the year 1998, as such the petitioner worked only for 84 days and in the year 1999, he worked for 69 days, thus, worked for in all 153 days. Similarly, petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 17155 of 2006 worked only for 43 days in the year 1998 and only for 64 days in the year 1999. There is specific finding given by the learned Labour Court that the workman have failed to prove that they have worked for not less than 240 days in the preceding year. Considering the facts and circumstances, when it is held by the learned Labour Court that there is no breach of section 25F of the ID Act and the reference is rejected, it cannot be said that the Labour Court has committed any error and/or illegality. Mr.Vasavada, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners has failed to satisfy this Court as to how the finding arrived at by the Labour Court to the effect that the petitioners have failed to prove that they have worked for not less than 240 days in the last preceding year and therefore, there is no breach of section 25F of the ID Act, is illegal and against the evidence on record.
3.02. Now, so far as the alleged breach of section 25G of the ID Act is concerned, it is required to be noted that in the cross-examination, the concerned workmen have specifically admitted that no juniors to them have been continued in Page 4 of 5 C/SCA/17154/2006 JUDGMENT service. The findings of fact given by the learned Labour Court that there is no breach of section 25G of the ID Act is on appreciation of evidence and the same is neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record. Mr.Vasavada, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners is not in a position to satisfy this Court as to how the finding is perverse. He is not in a position to show that any juniors to the petitioners were continued. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Labour Court has rightly held that there is no breach of section 25G of the ID Act.
4.00. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, both these petitions fail and they deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.
Sd/-
(M.R.SHAH, J.) Rafik Page 5 of 5