Balkrushna Natvarlal Bhatt vs Viramgam Municipaltiy

B.J. Shethna, J.—Heard Mr. Vyas for the appellant-workman. The appellant-original petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 2843/03

before this court and challenged the part of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad on 3.8.2002 in

Reference (LCA) No. 1136/80 (old case)- Reference (LCA) No. 788/00 (new number) whereby the Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the

petitioner in service at his original post, but given continuity of service only from 1.6.2002 by denying back wages till 24.6.2002. This part of the

order by which the workman was not given continuity of service from the date on which he joined the services and denied back wages up to

1.6.2002 is challenged before the learned Singel Judge in the writ petition. Having gone through the judgment of the Labour Court, the learned

Single Judge summarily dismissed the writ petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 2843/03 by his brief order dated 17.3.2003 after hearing the

learned counsel for the petitioner-workman and perusing the record of the case as he was of the opinion that the petition was wholly misconceived.

It is a brief order, which we would like to reproduce the same as under :-

Ravi R. Tripathi, J.

DATE OF ORDER : 17/03/2003

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned advocate and perused the record of the case. No case is made out for interference at the hands of this Court under Article 226

of the Constitution of India. The petition is misconceived. Hence the Special Civil Application is dismissed. No order as to costs

Sd/-

(Ravi R. Tripathi, J.)

Learned counsel Mr. Vyas for the appellant vehemently submitted that once the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the termination was

illegal, then while ordering reinstatement in service he should have been given continuity in service the day on which his services were terminated

and he should not have been denied back wages till 1.6.2002. On peculiar fats of this case, this submission of Mr. Vyas was totally misconceived.

In absence of the reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition we undertook the exercise of going through

the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court. From the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, it is clear that though the

case was old one of 1980, after filing the same before the Labour Court, the appellant-workman was constantly remaining absent and at last

because of this, the case was dismissed for default in his absence. However, the Labour Court was kind enough to restore the case on an

application for restoration filed by the workman. But even thereafter the workman remained totally negligent and did not remain present before the

Labour Court for even deposing and on and often he used to give applications for adjournment of the case, which were granted by the Labour

Court in the interest of justice. On a writ petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 2033 of 2001, this court issued directions to the Labour Court

to dispose of the case within four months, but even after the case was remanded to the Labour Court by this court, the workman took almost 3 to

4 adjournments and when last warning was given to him to depose, then at last he appeared before the Labour Court for deposing on 24.6.2002.

Considering the attitude of the workman, the Labour Court though found that termination of the workman was illegal did not grant continuity of

services from the date on which his services were terminated and also denied back wages to him up to 1.6.2002 because for the first time, he

preferred to remain present and depose before the Labour Court on 24.6.2002 when he was compelled to appear before the Labour Court for

deposition, otherwise on that day the matter would have been once again dismissed for default. Considering the fact that the case was old case and

pending before it for 22 years, the Labour court rightly observed that it is impossible to believe that the workman would have survived without

doing anything for last 22 years. The Labour Court also observed in its award that the delay of 22 years occurred in this case only because of the

negligence of the workman himself. Accordingly, he was given continuity of service from 1.6.2002 and back wages from the date on which he

deposed before the Labour court i.e. on 24.6.2002. When the Labour Court took just and reasonable view in the matter and passed balanced

judgment, then we are of the considered opinion that no interference was called for in the writ petition by the learned Single Judge, who rightly

dismissed the writ petition without assigning any reasons in his brief order dated 17.3.2003. When the learned Single Judge of this court refused to

exercise his discretionary writ jurisdiction in favour of the appellant-workman in a writ petition, then there is no question of interference in this

appeal.

In view of the above discussion, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.