Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat Through The ... vs Thakore Manguben Khodaji on 26 August, 2021
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/21129/2018 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21129 of 2018
=============================================
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH THE ASSISTANT RESEARCH OFFICER
Versus
THAKORE MANGUBEN KHODAJI
=============================================
Appearance:
MR SAHIL TRIVEDI, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 26/08/2021
ORAL ORDER
In the present writ petition, the petitioner - State has
challenged the judgment and award dated 25.06.2018 passed
by the Labour Court, Mehsana in Reference (L.C.M.) No.443 of
2008 (old no.449 of 2003), whereby, the Labour Court has
ordered the petitioner to reinstate the respondent work-women
at her original post without back wages with continuity in
service by awarding cost of Rs.5,000/-.
2. Learned AGP Mr.Sahil Trivedi, appearing for the petitioner
- State, has submitted that the impugned award is required to
be quashed and set aside since the same is passed without
appreciation of the facts. He has submitted that the
respondent was unable to produce any material on record
whether she had actually worked regularly, as claimed in her
written statement. A specific contention was raised by the
petitioner that she had not properly behaved with the office
C/SCA/21129/2018 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2021
bearers and had gone on unauthorized leave, and hence,
looking to the irresponsibility in performing work, the higher
authority had decided to terminate her services and thus, the
learned AGP has submitted that the impugned award may be
set aside.
3. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned
advocate Mr.Tejas P. Satta, for the respondent, has submitted
that the impugned award of the Labour Court may not be
disturbed as the same is passed on appropriate evidence - oral
as well as documentary.
4. Heard the learned advocate for the respective parties
and perused the impugned passed by the Labour Court.
5. The Labour Court, after appreciation of evidence, oral as
well as documentary, has held that the respondent was
working as Safaai Kamdar cum water-women and performing
duties with monthly wages of Rs.450/-. The Labour Court has
perused the evidence which pertains to the presence / days on
which the respondent has worked from January, 1995 to
February, 2003. After perusing the same, the Labour Court has
held that the respondent had worked as water women for 240
days in all the years for a period of 10 months. Further, it is
also held by the Labour Court that she was terminated without
following due procedure under the provisions of Section 25 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the ID Act"). It is
also pertinent to note that the Labour Court has also observed
the aspect that though an allegation with regard to the
misconduct was levelled against the respondent, the
petitioner never held departmental proceedings and she was
C/SCA/21129/2018 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2021
terminated from services without following due procedure as
prescribed under the ID Act. This Court is of the considered
view that the award and the order of the Labour Court does not
suffer from any perversity or illegality which calls for any
interference by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India. Since, admittedly, the termination of the
respondent is stigmatic and neither any departmental inquiry
was held before terminating her services, nor the provisions of
Section 25 of the ID Act were followed, the Labour Court is
justified in directing the petitioner to reinstate her with
continuity of services without back wages.
6. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is
rejected. Notice is discharged.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
dolly
