AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Paresh Upadhyay, J.—Heard Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner-authority and Mrs. Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent. Challenge in this petition is made to the award dated 13.04.2004 passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar, in Reference Case No.(LCJ) 330 of 1992 by which the respondent is ordered to be reinstated in service.
Learned advocate for the petitioner-authority, Mr. Munshaw has contended that the respondent was working as a Valveman and thus the distribution of water in villages was dependent on the respondent operating the Valve properly. It is stated that without intimating any of the authorities he had remained absent and had abandoned his service. It is further contended that, the wages for six days of the month of November, 1991 for which he had worked, was paid to him and due receipt was also taken by the petitioner. By referring to Annexures-B of this petition it is contended that, not only the respondent-workman did not raise his grievance at the relevant time, it was the say of the respondent-workman himself, as contained in his letter dated 09.12.1991, Annexure-B that, he had abandoned his duty. Learned advocate for the petitioner-authority Mr. Munshaw stated that since the job of the Valveman is to operate the Valve of the water supply pipeline, the distribution of the water between different villages, the period, for which the respondent did not remain present, even without intimating the authorities, the water distribution between different villages got affected. It is the say of the petitioner-authority that right from the beginning, the petitioner-authority had contended that it the respondent-workman, who had left the job, and if, the contents of reply of the petitioner to the statement of claim of the respondent-workman is seen, the same is maintained all throughout. Specific reference is made to paragraph 4 of the award where the plea in this regard of the petitioner-authority is recorded.
It is contended that in view of this background, the finding of the Labour Court to the effect that there was illegal termination of the respondent by the petitioner-authority, is bad and the reinstatement could not have been ordered. It is further contended that at the relevant time, the respondent was working on one project and at present there is no such post and therefore, it is not possible to reinstate the respondent. It is pointed out from the contents of the award itself that, when the respondent-workman raised the dispute, even the readiness was shown by the authority that since he was not terminated, he may join the service, if he desires. However, it is the say of the petitioner-authority that, the respondent-workman did not turn up to join the service and therefore, at this distant point of time, the reinstatement, which is otherwise stayed by this Court during the pendency of this petition, be not permitted and the same be quashed and set-aside.
On the other hand, Mrs. Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the respondent-workman has contended that there was violation of Sections 25-F and 25-Gof the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is contended that no notice was given by the petitioner-authority. It is the say of the respondent-workman that the contents of Annexures-B & C to this petition cannot be taken into consideration since the same was not produced before the Labour Court.
Learned advocate for the respondent Mrs. Vasavdatta Bhatt has placed reliance on the decisions of Hon''ble Supreme Court in case of Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No. 1 Panipat (Haryana), and in the case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, . Learned advocate for the respondent-workman has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others, 1986 (1) GLR 410.
Having heard learned advocates for both the side and having gone through the record of this case, this Court finds that initially the respondent-workman appeared on caveat. On 12.10.2004, after hearing learned advocate for the respondent-workman, this Court (Coram: Hon''ble Mr. Justice Ravi R. Tripathi) had passed the following order:
Mr. Ashish D. Oza, learned advocate appearing for the respondent, files an affidavit-in-reply, which is taken on record. Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, to file rejoinder affidavit, if any, to the affidavit-in-reply.
Original Annexures-B and C are taken on record.
Mr. Munshaw, the learned advocate, to find out as to after the respondent-workman (as per the case of the petitioner) left the job of his own, on 7th November, 1991, who performed the duty as ''Valveman'' till the year 1993, as the project was over in the year 1993, and what happened to that person after 1993. Mr. Munshaw seeks time in the mater. At his request, the matter is adjourned to 26th October, 2004.
The above referred two documents, Annexures-B & C are found, in original, on the record of this petition, which is shown even to learned advocate for the respondent.
Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the record as well as the contents of Annexures-B & C, the picture which emerges is that, the say of the respondent-workman that he was terminated, does not inspire confidence. The plea of the petitioner-authority that, it is the respondent-workman who had left the job, at the first place that too without any intimation, and further that by the letter Annexure-B, it is the respondent who had requested for the payment of wages for six days for the month of November, 1991, which is paid also, is found to be well founded and is supported by contemporaneous Government record. The authenticity of those documents, including the receipt is not undoubted even by the learned advocate of the respondent.
Under these circumstances, this Court finds that the Labour Court erred in putting a wrong question to it, by ignoring the specific plea taken by the petitioner-authority. So far, the reliance placed by learned advocate for the respondent-workman, on the above referred two judgments of Hon''ble the Supreme Court is concerned, it is observed that there cannot be any dispute that, in the event, when violation of Sections 25-F and/or 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is found, it would render the action of the employer illegal. However, in the facts of this case, there is ample material on record to show that discontinuance of services of the respondent-workman was not termination, but was his abandoning of service. In this fact situation, these two decisions of Hon''ble the Supreme Court would not take the case of the respondent-workman any further. So far, reliance on the decision of this Court is concerned, though new plea in this petition cannot be entertained by this Court, however, as recorded above, the very opening part of the impugned award of the Labour Court, as reflected in para 4 thereof, clarifies that, right from beginning, the stand of the petitioner-authority is that, it is the respondent-workman who had left the job and there was no termination by the petitioner-authority. The reliance on documents Annexures B & C is in support of the said plea, which is already recorded by the Labour Court and under these circumstances even the above referred decisions of this Court would not take the case of the respondent any further.
The reasoning recorded by the Labour Court as to how the respondent is entitled to get reinstatement, if seen in totality, is inconsistent with the record of the petitioner-authority which is a Government institute and under these circumstances, the reasoning or the conclusion of the Labour Court cannot be sustained. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed. The impugned award of the Labour Court is quashed and set-aside. Since, during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner authority was under the directions of this Court to make payment as per the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and since this petition is disposed of today, the said direction would now not survive. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.