Rajubhai Maansingbhai Solanki vs Range Forest Officer

M.R. Shah, J.—By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and award dated 02.01.2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labuor Court, Amreli in Reference (L.C.A.) No. 153/2001, by which the Labour Court has dismissed the said reference.

The petitioner was serving as daily wager Chokidar and even according to him he worked for only 13 months and was paid the wages at the rate of Rs. 40 per month. Even according to the petitioner, his services came to be terminated orally on and from 01.06.1986. That after a period of 15 years, the petitioner raised industrial dispute challenging his alleged termination with effect from 01.06.1986, which was referred to Labour Court, Amreli which was numbered as Reference (L.C.A.) No. 153/2001. On appreciation of evidence and considering the fact that industrial dispute was raised after a period of 15 years, the Labour Court held that there was no retrenchment and/or termination at all but the petitioner voluntarily abandoned the services and consequently the Labour Court dismissed the said reference. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Amreli dated 02.01.2009 passed in Reference (L.C.A.) No. 153/2001, petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Shri Jadeja, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently submitted that even in the cross-examination, the witness who came to be examined on behalf of the respondent has admitted that at the time of termination, no seniority list was maintained. Therefore, it is to be presumed that the petitioner was terminated. Therefore, it is submitted that finding given by the Labour Court that the petitioner had voluntarily abandoned the service is contrary to the evidence on record. It is submitted that at the relevant time when the services of the petitioner was terminated, no retrenchment compensation was paid though he completed 240 days of service and thus, there was committed breach of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the Labour Court ought to have allowed the reference by directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner.

Having heard Shri Jadeja, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and considering the impugned judgment and award, it appears that the learned Labour Court has, on appreciation of evidence and considering the fact that industrial dispute was raised after a period of more than approximately 15 years, held that the petitioner had voluntarily abandoned the work and therefore, he did not approach the Industrial Tribunal at the relevant time. Even the aforesaid finding is on appreciation of evidence which is not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is an admitted position even according to the petitioner himself that in the year 1986, he worked only for 13 months and that too as daily wager peon and nothing is on record that for how many days, he has worked in the year 1986. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the Labour Court has committed any error in dismissing the reference.

In view of the above, there is no substance in the present petition which deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.