Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rajabhai Kalabhai Solanki on 29 July, 2021
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/10281/2020 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10281 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10281 of 2020
====================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAJABHAI KALABHAI SOLANKI
========================================================
Appearance:
MR. DHARMESH DEVNANI, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. HARDIK V PATEL(9760) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS. SAMATA V PATEL(3784) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 29/07/2021
ORAL ORDER
1) The present petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking for the following prayer;
"6(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set aside the order passed in Ref.(T) Case No. 24 of 2018 dated 26.07.2019."
2) Learned AGP Mr.Devnani appearing for the petitioner-State, while placing reliance on the award of the Labour Court, has submitted that the Labour Court has not examined the documentary evidence in its true perspective, since the respondent No. 1-workman has worked for a short period, hence, award of the reinstatement is illegal. It is further submitted that the Labour Court has erred in holding the termination of the respondent workman, has violated the provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("I.D.Act"), and hence, the direction of reinstatement is required to be set aside.
3) Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Patel appearing for the respondent workman has supported the award of the Labour Court and has submitted Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Sun Aug 01 06:45:55 IST 2021 C/SCA/10281/2020 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2021 that the Labour Court has only directed reinstatement with continuity of service without back wages. She has submitted that the service of the petitioner was orally terminated on 31.03.2018 and ultimately on 17.04.2018, the respondent workman has also issued notice to the Range Forest Officer, asking him to reinstate in service or he would be constrained to file appropriate proceedings under the I.D. Act. It is further submitted that the respondent workman was engaged as a daily wager on 01.10.2015 and he has worked for more than 240 days on the daily wages of Rs.289/- and ultimately, he was terminated orally on 31.03.2018. It is further submitted that the Labour Court, after hearing the respective parties and after perusing the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence, allowed the reference in part and hence this Court may not disturb the findings of the Labour Court. It is submitted that the petitioner, while placing reliance on the abstract of the computer, has contended that the respondent workman has not worked for more than 240 days, but the said contention was not believed by the Labour Court as the respondent workman was engaged for 230 days and the petitioner used to pay the wages for 19 days and, hence, the application below exhibit 30 was also filed by the respondent workman seeking direction to produce original Register Attendance, Salary Register and Vouchers, to prove that the details produced in Computer sheet was genuine. Thereafter, the Labour Court, after hearing, has passed an order directing the petitioner to produce the original Attendance Register, Salary Register and Vouchers but the same were not produced and hence, an adverse inference can be drawn in favour of the petitioner that actual working days of respondent workman were suppressed.
4) This Court has perused the relevant facts pointed out by the learned advoctes for the respective parties and also perused the impugned award Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Sun Aug 01 06:45:55 IST 2021 C/SCA/10281/2020 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2021 passed by the Labour Court.
5) It is an established fact the respondent workman was engaged as a daily wager on 01.10.2015 till 31.03.2018. It appears that when the service of the petitioner was orally terminated the respondent workman vide on 17.04.2018, issued a notice asking the petitioner authority to reinstate him in service. A specific contention has been raised in the notice that he has worked for more than 240 days for three years and he has been terminated orally without assigning any reasons.
6) The findings of the Labour Court also reveal that the petitioner- State was also asked to produce the relevant vouchers/documents to justify the attendance of the petitioner, however, it appears that the department did not do so and the department was unable to satisfy the Labour Court, with regard to his non-engagement for the work for 240 days. The Labour Court after examining the relevant documents and records, has held that the oral termination of the petitioner was in violation of Section 25F of the I.D.Act. The issuance on the notice by the respondent No.1 to the concerned authority on 17.04.2018 with regard to oral termination is also not disputed. Under the circumstances, no infirmity, illegality or perversity is found in the award of the Labour Cour.
7) In this view of the matter, the writ petition fails and the same is rejected. Notice is discharged.
Connected Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) VISHAL MISHRA Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Sun Aug 01 06:45:55 IST 2021