Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing The Executive Engineer And Ors. vs Shantuben Chhaganbhai Makwana on 8 August, 2007

Pandya Mitesh Kailashbabu vs State Of Gujarat on 7 December, 2021

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was serving from six years and he could not have been removed after rendering such service and accordingly the petitioner made a representation to the respondent authorities not to remove him. He has also placed reliance on the judgements of the Apex Court in the case of Executive Engineer Vs. Shantuben Chhaganbhai Makwana, (2007) 3 GCD 2133, Narendrakumar Narsinhbhai Vankar Vs. Manager Medicinal And Aromatic Plants, (2016) 4 GLR 3534, State of Gujarat Vs. Chetan Jayantilal Rajgor , (2021) 2 GLR 1211, Bilimora Nagarpalika Vs. Jashuben Jashavantbhai Solanki, (2013) 1 GLR 845 and on the judgement of Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 25.07.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No.12537 of 2011. In support of his submissions, he has submitted that in all the aforesaid judgements, it is held that if an employee has completed 240 days of work, he cannot be removed without notice and hence, since the petitioner was removed without notice, the Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 07:40:37 IST 2022 C/SCA/1210/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/12/2021 petitioner may be continued in service. It is further submitted that "respondents have mischief with the muster roll" and the muster roll was forged and hence, the impugned order of removal may be set aside. It is also submitted that the petitioner, though was appointed as Guard, he was giveng the work of Computer Clerk. It is submitted that the respondents are prejudice against the petitioner and hence, the impugned order may be cancelled. No further submissions are advanced.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A S Supehia - Full Document

Dhoraji Municipality vs Bhaveshkumar A Jagani & on 7 January, 2014

6.1. This   Court   in  Executive   Engineer   &   Ors.   vs.  Shantuben   Chhaganbhai   Makwana   [2007   Lab   IC   3661],  observed and held as under:­ Page 4 of 8 C/SCA/18789/2013 ORDER "10. Law on this subject has recently been examined by  the Apex Court and decided that in such circumstances  when  the  workman  is not  having  any  evidence  to  prove  completion   of   240   days   continuous   service   within   one  year, then, in such circumstances, employer shall have  to   produce   documentary   evidence   which   are   in  possession of the employer and if the evidence of the  workman has not been challenged in cross examining the  workman   concerned,   then   labour   court   has   right   to  believe   the   oral   evidence   of   workman.
Gujarat High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - N V Anjaria - Full Document
1