Gujarat High Court
Gambhirsinh Juvansinh Gohil vs Deputy Executive Engineer on 31 January, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16907/2023 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16907 of 2023
==========================================================
GAMBHIRSINH JUVANSINH GOHIL
Versus
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SUDHA C SHUKLA(3804) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS SUMAN MOTLA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 31/01/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed challenging the award of the Labour
Court, Bhavnagar dated 30.05.2023 in Reference (LCB) No. 47
of 2019 wherein the Reference filed by the workman was
rejected.
2. The facts in brief are as under:-
The workman for his alleged illegal termination raised a
dispute before the Labour Court, Bhavnagar registered as
Reference (LCB) No. 47 of 2019. The Labour Court upon
adjudication and after taking into consideration the evidence
on record, rejected the reference on the ground of delay as
well as on the ground that the workman failed in discharging
his primary onus to establish that he had completed 240 days
in preceding year. Aggrieved by the rejection of reference by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16907/2023 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2024
undefined
award dated 30.05.2023, present petition is filed.
3. Heard learned advocate Ms. Sudha Shukla and learned
Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Suman Motla for the
respondent - State.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the
award of the Labour Court dated 30.05.2023 is erroneous since
it failed to consider that the delay occasioned in preferring the
reference was genuine and well-explained. Further, since the
petitioner was working as a dailywager, he preferred an
application for production of documents. The said application
though was allowed, no documents were produced by the
respondent - State and therefore the inference drawn that the
workman failed in discharging the primary onus for completion
of 240 days is erroneous. She therefore submitted that the
award of the Labour Court dated 30.05.2023 deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader
Ms. Suman Motla for the respondent - State submitted that the
Labour Court as passed the award after taking into
consideration the evidence on record. Admittedly there was
delay of 16 years in raising the dispute. Further, the workman
also failed in leading evidence in relation to completion of his
240 days and therefore, question of breach of Section 25 F, G
and H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, would not arise
and therefore no interference of this Court is required.
5.1 In support of her submissions on delay, she relied upon
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16907/2023 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2024
undefined
the decision of this Court in the case of Pravinbhai Nanjibhai
Bharadava V/s. State of Gujarat in Letters Patent Appeal No.
307 of 2016 decided on 26.04.2016.
6. Considered the submissions and the decision relied upon.
Admittedly for the termination w.e.f. 30.03.2003, the dispute
was raised in the year 2019. Thus, there is a delay of 16 years
in raising the dispute.
This Court in Pravinbhai Nanjibhai Bharadava [supra] on
belated raising of dispute has held as under:-
"5. It is to be noticed that though it is the
case of the workman that he was
discontinued from service on 15.9.1999, the
dispute was raised in the year 2008. It is
true that the provisions of Limitation Act,
1963 would not apply in stricto senso to the
disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act
but in the judgment in the case of Assistant
Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture
Marketing Board, sub-division, Kota (supra)
and further in the judgment of Prabhakar V/
s Joint Director Sericulture Department,
reported in JT 2015(9) SC 83, the Supreme
Court has clearly held that in a case of
unexplained delay and laches on the part of
the workman, the Court shall bear in mind
such objection before grant of relief. It is
also to be noticed that there is a specific
case of the petitioner that the petitioner last
worked only upto 1989 and on his own he
discontinued from attending the work. In
spite of such contention, there is no material
placed before the learned Single Judge to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16907/2023 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2024
undefined
show that he has continued in service after
the year 1989. In that view of the matter,
we are of the view that the learned Single
Judge rightly placed reliance on the
judgment referred above and allowed the
petition. With regard to the other
submissions made by learned advocate for
the appellant that he may be awarded
compensation at least in terms of the ratio
of the laid down in Assistant Engineer,
Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board,
sub-division, Kota (supra), it is to be noticed
that in that set of facts, there was a delay of
six years and he has admittedly worked from
1.11.1984 to 17.2.1986. In this case, having
regard to the statement made by the
employer before the Labour Court that the
petitioner discontinued from the year 1989
on his own, we are of the view that this is
not a fit case to grant any compensation
also. Granting of compensation instead of
reinstatement is also a matter which depends
on various factors."
6.2 In view of above, delay of 16 years in initiating
proceedings before the Labour Court cannot be ignored.
Further, no justification was provided for such delay and
therefore the findings of the Labour Court does not call for
any interference.
7. On the aspect of non-production of documents upon
application filed by the workman, the Labour Court has
observed that in the cross-examination the workman admitted
that he has no evidence to support his case that he has
continuously worked for 240 days. On the contrary, he
admitted that the evidence produced by the respondent for his
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16907/2023 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2024
undefined
presence for the year 1988 - 89 to 1998 is correct. He also
admitted that he did work as and when the work was
available. Therefore, there is no error in the findings that the
workman failed in discharging his primary onus to establish
that he had worked for 240 days in a year. No interference is
called for.
8. In view of above, in the opinion of this Court, no case is
made out by the petitioner for interference by this Court. The
petition is accordingly rejected.
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
SHRIJIT PILLAI
