District Rural Development ... vs Mukeshkumar Gandalal Jadav
2021 Latest Caselaw 13466 Guj

      C/LPA/906/2017                                       ORDER DATED: 06/09/2021


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 906 of 2017
            In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4942 of 2017
==========================================================
                DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
                               Versus
               MUKESHKUMAR GANDALAL JADAV & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PH PATHAK(665) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
       and
       HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER
                            Date : 06/09/2021

                         ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)

Heard learned advocate Mr.H.S. Munshaw for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.P.H. Pathak for respondent No.1.

2. In this Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the letters patent, appellant seeks to challenge order dated 27th March, 2017 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.4942 of 2017, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Special Civil Application.

2.1 The Special Civil Application of the appellant-original petitioner was directed against judgment and award dated 30th September, 2016 passed by Labour Court No.5, Ahmedabad in Reference (T) No.1265 of 2007, whereby the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the respondent-workman on his original post with continuity of service but without back wages.

       C/LPA/906/2017                                          ORDER DATED: 06/09/2021



3.             The       facts     inter              alia    were        that,          the

respondent who was Computer Operator-cum-Clerk under the appellant-District Rural Development Agency invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court seeking reinstatement with back wages, stating in his statement of claim that he was working as Computer Operator-cum-Clerk with effect from 01st May, 2001 till 28th February, 2007, that his services came to be terminated on 01st March, 2007. The workman alleged breach of mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 while praying continuous service rendered in every year. It appears that initially the right to file reply for the appellant-employer was closed, however subsequently the Labour Court allowed filing of reply to the statement of claim. As per the case of the appellant, the workman was engaged in the work of typing and used to perform work need based.

3.1 The Labour Court considered the deposition of the workman (Exh.12) filed in support of statement of claim wherein inter alia names of four junior workmen viz.Zakir, Sarojben, Sabina and Jagrutiben were mentioned to submit that they were retained for work which was available. The appellant agency was engaged in rendering economic assistance to the rural people and to mitigate unemployment and that the work and the activity was on increase. The workman who is commerce graduate, worked from 2001 on a fixed pay of Rs.02,500/- per month. The defence of the appellant- employer was that the workman was retained in service on a fixed pay and the Director had terminated his services in the year 2007 as presently there is no

C/LPA/906/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/09/2021

need to engage the respondent-workman.

3.2 Upon evaluating and assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, Labour Court recorded finding that the workman was in service under the appellant from 01st May, 2001 to 28th February, 2007 and noted that basic facts about services of the workman stated by him in the statement of claim were not controverted in evidence by the employer. The vouchers were produced showing salary paid to the respondent workman. Certain certificates were before the Labour Court certifying hard work of the workman. The Labour Court noted and specifically observed that the work in the appellant agency is on increase every year and there is evidence to believe that the work which was performed by the respondent-workman has been continuing even after his dismissal from service and that workmen who are juniors to the respondent were retained. The Labour Court held that there was a breach of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act.

3.3 As a consequence, reinstatement was granted but back wages were denied. For denying the back wages, it was reasoned that it was not possible to believe that workman remained idle without work for such long time.

4. Learned Single Judge considered the facts of the case and findings recorded by the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge recorded that in arriving at the finding by the Labour Court about continuous work

C/LPA/906/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/09/2021

done by the workman, certain documentary and oral evidence were taken into consideration. It was also observed that merely because certain lump sum amount was paid to the workman, it would not rob the person off the status of workman. The learned Single Judge recorded finding that it was not possible to believe that retrenchment of the workman was a consequence of deputation.

4.1 The Labour Court found that the work was available. In this regard, after assessing the facts and the evidence, learned Single Judge observed that "Even otherwise, it appears from the evidence discussed by the Labour Court that the work of the nature which the workmen were doing is of perennial nature and there has been increase in the said work.".

5. Having examined the facts and having gone through the judgment and award of the Labour Court, we find that the conclusion recorded by learned Single Judge is eminently proper. While learned Single Judge has rightly observed that reassessment of evidence was not permissible in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, even seen from the judgment and award of the Labour Court, the factum of work and the junior workmen having been retained are established. It is after considering the evidence on such counts that the Labour Court recorded findings about breach of mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, entitling the workman for reinstatement. The Labour

C/LPA/906/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/09/2021

Court approached the dispute in a balanced way by not awarding the back wages, observing that looking to the nature of work, the workman would have been engaged and would have earned. The assessment of evidence by the Labour Court was found to be without any error or irregularity.

6. All the findings of the Labour Court and revisited by learned Single Judge are based on the evidence. They are in no way perverse. They are arrived at in reasonable manner with proper reasoning. No case is made out to interfere with the impugned order of learned Single Judge in exercise of letters patent jurisdiction.

7. The Letters Patent Appeal is summarily dismissed. Notice is discharged. Interim order stands vacated.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J)

(DR. A. P. THAKER, J) ANUP