Gujarat High Court
Mehsana District Panchayat vs Usmangani Gulabsha Fakir on 8 December, 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/18889/2011 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18889 of 2011
==========================================================
MEHSANA DISTRICT PANCHAYAT & 1 other(s)
Versus
USMANGANI GULABSHA FAKIR & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR RJ GOSWAMI(1102) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 08/12/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Special Civil Application impugns the judgment and award dated 17.09.2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mehsana, whereby, the Reference has been partially allowed and it has been ordered that the respondent workman be reinstated in service along with 25% back wages from 27.08.1997.
2. The learned counsel Mr. H. S. Munshaw appearing for the petitioner District Panchayat submits that the respondent workman was provided work purely on ad-hoc and daily wage basis as labourer from 01.05.1979 and due to administrative reasons, since there was no work available, he was discontinued from the service on 01.04.1986. He submits that the respondent workman approached the learned Labour Court by filing Reference No.251 of 1987 and the same came to be allowed vide award dated 26.11.1992, whereby the petitioner was directed to reinstate the Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 13 20:34:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18889/2011 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2023 undefined respondent workman with 60% back wages. He further submits that the said award dated 26.11.1992 came to be challenged by way of Special Civil Application No.8457 of 1993, which came to be rejected on 20.01.1994. He submits that thereafter, the respondent workman was reinstated in service with effect from 18.03.1994 by office order dated 01.03.1994. The respondent workman was also paid 60% back wages by order dated 22.08.1994 and since there was no work available, he was discontinued from the service by the same order after payment of notice pay. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.08.1994, whereby the services came to be terminated, the respondent workman filed Reference No.31 of 1998, which came to be renumbered as 62 of 2008. By the judgment and award dated 17.09.2011, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mehsana, partially allowed the reference and directed reinstatement of the respondent workman from 27.08.1997 along with 25% back wages.
2.1 The learned counsel Mr. Munshaw submits that since the respondent workman was a daily wager and labourer, due to administrative reasons, it was not possible to continue him as there was no work available and after following due procedure under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the services of the respondent workman came to be terminated. He submits that the learned Labour Court has wrongly concluded that there was no evidence with respect to non-availability of the work with the petitioner and therefore, it could not be said that the services of the respondent workman came to be terminated validly. He further submits that even the learned Labour Court has not properly appreciated the fact that the the Department had calculated the entitlement of the respondent workman towards back wages and even as per the said calculation, vide letter dated 22.08.1994, the Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 13 20:34:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18889/2011 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2023 undefined respondent workman was also paid the notice pay of Rs.930.60ps. He submits that the learned Labour Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence and allowed the reference granting reinstatement and 25% back wages. He, therefore, submits that the present Special Civil Application be allowed and the judgment and award dated 17.09.2011 be set aside.
3. None appears for the respondent workman.
4. I have perused the documents on record. It is not disputed that the respondent workman came to be terminated with effect from 01.04.1986. It is also not disputed that he was working as daily wager/labourer with effect from 01.05.1979. It is further not disputed that the respondent workman came to be reinstated after the dismissal of Special Civil Application No.8457 of 1993 and that he came to be reinstated in service on 18.03.1994. Further, the case of the petitioner is the respondent workman was paid 60% back wages on 22.08.1994. It is the case of the petitioner that along with the arrears of the back wages, notice pay was also given to the respondent workman and his services came to be terminated. From the perusal of the evidence led before the learned Labour Court, it is revealed that the petitioner has placed on record a copy of the order dated 22.08.1994, which is an officer order, by which, the services of the respondent workman came to be terminated with immediate effect. The said officer order further calculates the amount of arrears to be paid to the respondent workman along with the amount of notice pay. The said office order is placed on record to substantiate that the respondent workman had been terminated and he was paid the amount. The learned Labour Court has come to the conclusion that however, nothing has been brought on record to Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 13 20:34:52 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/18889/2011 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2023 undefined show that the said amount has been paid to the respondent workman and that he had been terminated in accordance with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Further, the respondent workman had been terminated from the service for the second time despite the earlier orders of the learned Labour Court and the High Court. In view thereof, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to bring on record the relevant material to show that there was no availability of the work and therefore, the services of the respondent workman were required to be terminated. The records were being maintained by the petitioner. The petitioner has not produced on record any documentary evidence in support of its contentions before the learned Labour Court, nor in the present petition to dispute the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court that there was no work available, due to which, the services of the respondent workman came to be terminated and that the respondent workman had been duly paid the back wages as well as notice pay before retrenchment.
5. In view of the aforesaid observations, no interference is called for in the impugned order. The present Special Civil Application is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) cmk Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 13 20:34:52 IST 2023