Gujarat Water Supply And Sewerage ... vs Ranabhai Mulubhai Kodiyatar
2021 Latest Caselaw 18113 Guj

     C/LPA/903/2021                            ORDER DATED: 06/12/2021



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 903 of 2021
          In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21276 of 2019
                                With
             CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021
             In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 903 of 2021
==========================================================
GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD THROUGH PANKAJ
                   MAVAJIBHAI NAGAR
                         Versus
              RANABHAI MULUBHAI KODIYATAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. BHARGAV V PANDYA(7103) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.H.VORA
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

                           Date : 06/12/2021

                            ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.H.VORA)

1. Feeling aggrieved with the oral order dated 16.7.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.21276 of 2019, whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition preferred by the appellant and confirmed the award dated 19.1.2019 passed by the Labour Court No.2, Junagadh in Reference (LCJ) No.39 of 2014, whereby the reference of the respondent No.1 workman was partly allowed and action of the appellant herein terminating the service of the respondent No.1 workman on 30.9.2013 was held to be illegal and consequently, the respondent No.1 workman was ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity as also 50% of backwages ordered to be paid within 30 days from the date of award being published, the appellant is before us.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1-

C/LPA/903/2021 ORDER DATED: 06/12/2021

workman before the Labour Court joined the services with the appellant from 19.12.2003 as dailywager at a daily-wage of Rs.205.50 paisa, which comes to Rs.5,500/- per month and Rs.300/- was being paid towards medical allowance. According to the respondent No.1 workman, he had worked upto the months October, November and December, 2013, and despite that he was not paid his due salary and on demand thereof in January, 2014, he was informed that he would get no salary. According to the respondent No.1 workman, he worked as line operator/ helper continuously for a period of 10 years and still however, his services came to be terminated without any notice, notice pay or any retrenchment compensation. Though, respondent No.1 workman made representation, but no any response was given by the appellant herein. According to the respondent No.1 workman, after his retrenchment from services, his juniors were continued in service without even calling upon him to join the same and therefore, respondent no.1-workman was constrained to file the aforesaid Reference through the Assistant Labour Commissioner.

3. The appellant resisted the reference filed by the respondent No.1 workman and also filed reply denying the claim made by respondent no.1-workman. According to the case of the appellant, the respondent workman worked as retail labourer from 19.12.2003 to 30.09.2013 at Barda Group Scheme under the appellant's office and he was not given any designation and he was paid minimum wages prevalent at that time for the days he had worked.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal has committed an error without first determining on the basis of cogent evidence that the respondent

C/LPA/903/2021 ORDER DATED: 06/12/2021

No.1 workman had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination and no proof of receipt of salary or wages or appointment or engagement for the period in question was produced by the respondent No.1 workman. According to the learned advocate for the appellant, in absence of any evidence, more particularly, documentary evidence, the Labour Court ought not to have passed the award and so also judgment and order by the learned Single Judge.

5. Considering the submissions so made at bar, the Court has noticed that the respondent workman served the examination-in-chief on affidavit to the appellant, but the appellant before the Labour Court chose not to appear and ultimately right of the cross examination of the appellant came to be closed on application Exh.27. Not only that, the documentary evidence along with examination-in-chief on affidavit was exhibited by the Labour Court assigning detailed reasons thereof. It appears that oral and documentary evidence produced by the respondent workman remained unchallenged. The reply filed by the appellant at Exh.12 indicates that there was no denial to the fact that respondent no.1-workman has worked with them, that too, for a period from 19.12.2003 to 30.09.2013. In order to establish the case that the respondent No.1 workman has worked as casual labourer for some days and not continuously for throughout 10 years is concerned, there is no iota of evidence adduced by the appellant. Not only that the respondent No.1 made a request before the Labour Court to produce material and relevant documents vide application at Exh.28. Despite material evidence in possession of the appellant and also request made by the respondent No.1 workman and as also ordered by the Court, the same was not produced. In nutshell, the case of the respondent workman as referred herein

C/LPA/903/2021 ORDER DATED: 06/12/2021

above remained unchallenged and uncontroverted despite opportunity was made available to the appellant, but surprisingly, it appears that after closure of the evidence by the respondent No.1 workman, the appellant also filed an application for closing its evidence without examining any evidence or producing any documentary evidence in support of its case as also documents ordered by the Labour Court to be produced in the case. Under the circumstances and in view of the evidence on oath of the respondent No.1 workman supported by admission in the reply of the appellant that the respondent No.1 workman has worked for a period claimed in the statement of claim, the Labour Court has rightly observed that the respondent No.1 workman has discharged his burden to prove his case by leading cogent evidence that he worked continuously for 10 years.

6. In view of such position emerging in the record and proceedings of Labour Court and the reference case, the learned Single Judge has rightly upheld the award of the Labour Court and therefore, this Court has found no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order rendered by the learned Single Judge and therefore, present LPA being devoid of merits both on law and facts, deserves only fate of dismissal and accordingly, it is hereby rejected at admission stage. Consequently connected civil application also stands disposed of.

(S.H.VORA, J)

(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE