G. N. Rabari And Co vs Narendra Bhimjibhai Trivedi
2023 Latest Caselaw 2905 Guj

     C/SCA/12472/2018                                      ORDER DATED: 12/04/2023




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12472 of 2018

================================================================
                        G. N. RABARI AND CO.
                                Versus
                 NARENDRA BHIMJIBHAI TRIVEDI & 1 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR VIJAY H NANGESH(3981) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

                                Date : 12/04/2023
                                 ORAL ORDER

The present Special Civil Application is filed praying for the

following reliefs:-

"8A. Your Lordships be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

B. Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ of mandamus or writ in any nature or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 09.04.2018 passed by the Ld. Judge (JD), Labour Court No.2, Jamnagar below Exh.50 in Reference (LCJ) No.281 of 2006 (Annex.A), in the interest of justice,

C. Pending Admission, Hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to stay the implantation, execution, and operation of the impugned order dated 09.04.2018 passed by the Ld. Judge (JD), Labour Court No.2, Jamnagar below Exh.50 in Reference (LCJ) No.281 of 2006 in the interest of justice;"

2. The factual matrix in the present case is that the

C/SCA/12472/2018 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2023

respondent No.1 was working in the petrol pump operated by the

petitioner partnership firm for a period of 27 years and he was

getting salary of Rs.2,200/- per month. It is further alleged by

the respondent workman that his services came to be terminated

on 13.7.2006 and further the petitioner continued the juniors of

the respondent workman in service.

2.1 Aggrieved, the respondent workman raised a dispute before

the the Assistant Labour Commissioner who by letter dated

1.12.2006 referred the dispute to the learned Labour Court,

Jamnagar being reference (LCJ) No.281 of 2006. The parties

submitted to the jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court. The

respondent workman filed his statement of claim. The

respondent workman led evidence in support of his case. The

petitioner did not lead any evidence. By the impugned judgment

and award dated 9.4.2018, the reference of the respondent

workman came to be allowed. However, instead of reinstatement,

the learned Labour Court was pleased to grant a lump sum

compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.

2.2 Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present Special Civil

Application.

C/SCA/12472/2018 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2023

3. Mr. Vijay Nangesh, learned advocate appearing for the

petitioner submitted that the respondent workman was not an

employee of the petitioner partnership firm and that he has not

produced any document to show that there was a relationship of

master and servant between the parties. He has not produced

any document like salary slip, muster roll or identity card to

show that he was in service of the petitioner. He submits that

the respondent workman has raised a false case that he was in

service for a period of 27 years with the petitioner partnership

firm from the year 1979 till his termination in the year 2006. He

has drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit of the

partner of the petitioner firm which was filed before the learned

Labour Court which stated that the document in respect of the

respondent workman could not be filed on record as the same

were not available and further as the person who maintained

such documents had since retired, the record could not be

found. He submits that the said affidavit ought to have been

taken into consideration by the learned Labour Court. He

submits that even otherwise once it has been denied by the

petitioner that the respondent workman was not its employee,

the learned Labour Court ought to have decided the same in

favour of the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the impugned

C/SCA/12472/2018 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2023

judgment and award is bad in law and be set aside. He submits

that the present Special Civil Application be allowed.

4. Per contra, Mr. U.T.Mishra, learned advocate appearing for

the respondent workman submits that the respondent workman

was employed by the petitioner firm in the year 1979 and he had

worked continuously till 13.7.2006 when he came to be

terminated from service after a period of 27 years of continuous

service. He submits that the petitioner has led evidence in

support of his case. In support of his contention, the respondent

workman has examined himself by way of oral evidence. He has

also moved an application for production of record by the

petitioner firm which was not produced. He further submitted

that the petitioner firm has not led any evidence before the

learned Labour Court in support of his contention. He submits

that the learned Labour Court has arrived at just and proper

conclusion on the basis of the evidence on record. He submits

that no interference is called for and the present Special Civil

Application be dismissed.

5. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the

document on record.

C/SCA/12472/2018 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2023

6. The record reveals that the respondent workman had led

oral evidence and he was also cross examined by the advocate

for the petitioner firm. The contentions of the respondent

workman have not been discredited in the cross examination.

Further, the respondent workman had moved an application for

production of documents in respect of his employment on which

an order also came to be passed by the learned Labour Court

directing the petitioner firm to produce its record. However, no

records came to be produced by the petitioner and an affidavit

came to be filed before the learned Labour Court as referred to

by the learned advocate for the petitioner hereinabove which

stated that no records are available with them and further they

could not be found since the person who was maintaining the

records had retired. Further, the record reveals that no witness

was examined on behalf of the petitioner firm, neither any

evidence was led in support of its contention. Further, the

learned Labour Court records that the respondent workman had

moved an application for closing the evidence of the petitioner

firm on which an order came to be passed closing the evidence of

the petitioner firm. The said order was never challenged and had

become final. Even today, learned advocate for the petitioner

C/SCA/12472/2018 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2023

submits that no evidence is available with them with respect to

the employment of the respondent workman and therefore,

nothing could be produced on record. This Court is of the

opinion that the judgment and award passed by the learned

Labour Court is based on cogent evidence and proper reasons.

Even in the present petition, nothing has been brought on record

which can controvert the claim of the respondent workman. This

Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment and award

by the learned Labour Court is just and proper and requires no

interference. The present Special Civil Application is devoid of

merits and is dismissed accordingly. Notice is discharged. No

order as to costs.

(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN