Minaxi Bharatbhai Rathod vs Managing Director
2022 Latest Caselaw 4410 Guj

    C/SCA/14638/2019                             JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14638 of 2019


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

==========================================================

1    Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
     to see the judgment ?

2    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3    Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
     of the judgment ?

4    Whether this case involves a substantial question
     of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
     of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                       MINAXI BHARATBHAI RATHOD
                                 Versus
                          MANAGING DIRECTOR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TUSHARKUMAR R UPADHYAY(9812) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS SNEHA A JOSHI(2156) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. SURBHI BHATI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER, for the
Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                             Date : 26/04/2022

                            ORAL JUDGMENT

1 Heard Mr.Tushar Upadhyay, learned advocate for Ms.Sneha Joshi,

learned advocate for the petitioner.

     C/SCA/14638/2019                              JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022



2       Rule returnable forthwith. Ms.Surbhi Bhati, learned Assistant

Government Pleader, waives service of rule on behalf of respondent

No.3. Though served, nobody appears for respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

3 Challenge is to the award of the Labour Court dated 11.03.2019 by

which the reference of the petitioner was rejected. Perusal of the award of

the labour Court would indicate that it was the case of the petitioner

before the Labour Court that she was working as a Trainee Operator since

01.06.2006 and made permanent with effect from 01.06.2007. That she

continued to work for over 240 days and it was in November 2009 that

her services were put to an end without following due procedure. After

the Statement of Claim was filed, on behalf of the employer, respondent

No.1 had filed a written statement. Perusal of the reasons awarded by the

Labour Court in rejecting the reference would indicate that at a stage of

cross examination, the petitioner workman could not remain present.

Even when deciding the quantum of backwages, the Labour Court has

clearly opined and observed that the petitioner workan did not remain

present before the Labour Court.

4 Mr.Tushar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, would

take the Court through the pleadings in the petition and indicate that due

to health reasons, the petitioner could not remain present before the

C/SCA/14638/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022

Labour Court and lead her evidence. He would therefore submit that if

one more chance is given to the petitioner to appear before the Labour

Court and lead her evidence, interest of justice will be served. Perusal of

the award would indicate that while considering the evidence on record,

the absence of the petitioner has been noted by the Labour Court.

5 With a view to give one more chance to appear and lead evidence,

the award of the Labour Court, Junagadh, dated 11.03.2019 in Reference

(T) No. 98 of 2010 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back

to the Labour Court. The petitioner shall appear before the Labour Court

and co-operate. The hearing of the reference shall be decided afresh after

giving an opportunity to the petitioner to be examined and cross

examined. It is expected that the Labour Court shall hear and decide the

reference based on the cooperation of the parties to it, preferably within a

periof of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

The writ of the Court be sent to the Presiding Officer of the Labour

Court, Junagadh, respondent No.2 herein. The petition is allowed,

accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) Bimal