State Of Mah. Thru. Executive ... vs Duryodhan Nagorao Gonde
2016 Latest Caselaw 3487 Bom

                                            1                                           wp3592.08




                                                                                     
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                      




                                                             
                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                            
     WRIT PETITION NO.3592 OF 2008


     The State of Maharashtra,
     through Executive Engineer, 




                                               
     Wardha Irrigation Division, Wardha.                              ....       PETITIONER


               
                             
                         VERSUS
                            
     Duryodhan Nagorao Gonde,
     Aged about 40 years, 
     R/o Dahegaon (Mustafa), Taluka -
     Arvi, District - Wardha.                                         ....       RESPONDENT
      
   



     ______________________________________________________________
                   Shri K.R. Lule, A.G.P. for the petitioner, 
                           None for the respondent.





      ______________________________________________________________

                                   CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 29 JUNE, 2016.

th

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Shri K.R. Lule, Assistant Government Pleader was heard

on behalf of the petitioner-employer on 22-06-2016. As nobody

appeared for the respondent-employee, the matter was adjourned

keeping it as part-heard.

Today when the matter is called out, again none appeared

2 wp3592.08

for the respondent-employee.

2. The employee approached the Conciliation Officer with

the grievance that his services were illegally terminated and the

employer be directed to reinstate him with continuity of service and to

pay the back wages. The reference was made to the Labour Court. The

Labour Court, by the impugned order, has answered the reference in

favour of the employee, has held that the termination of the employee

was illegal and without following the mandatory provisions of Section

25F and Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 81

of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957. The Labour Court set

aside the termination and directed the employer to reinstate the

employee with continuity of service and to pay back wages.

3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has referred to

the chart showing the details of number of days for which the

employee worked with the employer from 01-10-1986 till 31-03-1995.

It is pointed out that the employee had not worked for 240 or more

days in any year. The Labour Court has recorded the finding that the

statement of claim filed by the employee shows that he has worked

with the employer from 01-10-1986 till 31-03-1995 continuously and

3 wp3592.08

therefore, he had been in service for more than a year. The finding

recorded by the Labour Court is perverse and without any supporting

evidence on the record. The findings recorded by the Labour Court

and the consequential order passed by it cannot be sustained.

4. Hence, the following order :

(i)

The impugned award is set aside.

(ii) The reference is answered against the employee holding

that the employee has failed to establish that he worked

with the employer for 240 days in the year preceding his

termination.

(iii) It is held that the employee is not entitled for any reliefs.

(iv) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the

circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

adgokar