Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. vs Harjibhai Gabhabhai Dahyani and Another

S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.—The appellant - original petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 13023 of 2005 has filed this appeal challenging the order of learned Single Judge passed by this Court on 4.7.2005 dismissing the petition which was preferred by the appellant interalia challenging the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar on 29.1.2005 in I.D. Complaint No. 2 of 2009 (Old No. 3 of 1986), whereunder, the Court while partly allowing the complaint directed the respondent No. 2-Surat Electricity Limited to pay all the benefits to the workman from the date of termination till 12.10.1992 by treating the said period as continuous service and directed the respondent No. 1 - present appellant to reinstate the workman afresh with effect from 30.10.1992 without any back wages.

Facts in brief deserve to be set out as under:

The respondent No. 1 workman was serving with the respondent No. 2 a Surat Electricity Company Ltd at Power Plant of Bet Dwarka. His services came to be terminated with effect from 17th February, 1986 by the respondent No. 2 on the ground of unauthorized absentism. It appears from the record that there was one reference being Reference No. 1/1985 pending between the workman and the respondent No. 2 for certain demands and during the pendency of the same, it was the case of the respondent workman that he applied for medical leave without pay on 4.10.1985 for the period between from 15.10.1985 to 31.1.1986 which was not granted and again one another application was submitted for sanctioning the leave without pay and the workman left and had gone to Diu for medical treatment and when he had gone to resume his duties on 17.2.1986, his services came to be terminated by the respondent No. 2. As the said action was during the pendency of Reference and the application was given u/s 33(2)(b) for approval and similarly, the respondent workman also challenged the termination by way of the Industrial Dispute Complaint No. 2 of 1990 (Old Number NO. 3 of 1986) which was being considered by the Labour Court, Jamnagar. It appears from the record that during pendency of the aforesaid complaint, the Power Plant of Bet-Dwarka where the workman was working came to be transferred to the petitioner Gujarat Electricity Board with effect from 13.10.92 and therefore, GEB was also joined as the party in the aforesaid complaint. The Labour court, Jamnagar by its judgment and award dated 29.1.2005 partly allowed the aforesaid complaint and held the action of the respondent No. 2 in dismissing the respondent workman from service as illegal and directed the respondent No. 2 to pay backwages from the date of termination till 12.10.1992 and further directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent workman as fresh workman without any backwages with effect from 13.10.1992. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar dated 29.1.05 passed in ID Complaint No. 2 of 1990 (Old NO. 3 of 1986), the appellant GEB has preferred the aforesaid Special civil application, which came to be rejected vide order dated 4.7.2005, which is impugned in this Appeal.

Shri Premal Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has mainly submitted only one submission that in view of the agreement between the respondent No. 1 Surat Electricity Company Ltd and Gujarat Electricity Board dated 13th October, 1992 executed at the time of taking over distributing arrangement and power plant of Bet Dwarka of Surat Electricity Company on and from 13th October, 1992, there was specific condition that the Board will not accept any liability of the company for Bet-dwarka and the Board will not absorb any staff of the company working at Bed-dwarka and therefore, the Labour Court has materially erred in directing the Gujarat Electricity Board to absorb the respondent workman even as a fresh employee / workman. It is submitted that the other directions are contrary to the agreement entered into between the Surat Electricity Company Ltd and Gujarat Electricity Board and therefore, it is requested to allow the present special civil application and to quash and set aside the said directions by which the appellant Gujarat Electricity Board is directed to appoint the respondent workman as fresh employee. In support of his submission, Shri Joshi, learned advocate for the appellant has relied on the decision reported in Management of Ritz Theatre (P) Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen,

The learned Single Judge has appreciated the fact that Section 33A of the I.D. Act was not complied with and the dismissal was brought about. The appellant has not canvassed any other submission except the terms of contract between it and respondent No. 2 for resisting the application. The fact remains to be noted that the respondent No. 1 i.e. present appellant was also party in the complaint proceedings, whereunder the order came to be passed. The factum with regard to closure of the Surat Electricity Company Limited i.e. respondent No. 2, the original employer with effect from 13.10.1992 would in no way effect the workman''s contention with regard to his unceremonious dismissal without complying provisions of Section 33(A) of the I.D. Act. Section 25(FF) of the I.D. Act would not come into play in the facts and circumstances of the present case as admittedly there was no compliance with this provision as according to respondent-employer the complainant workman''s service stood terminated since 17.2.1986. The citation pressed into service by Shri Joshi is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. The reasoning given by learned Single Judge appears to be just and proper and it does not call for any interference. The Letters Patent Appeal is therefore deserve to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.