Dahyabhai Rambhai Raval vs The Dantiwada Water Reservoir Scheme

V.M. Sahai, J.—We have heard Mr P R Nanavati, learned Counsel for the Appellant. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 6.2.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 10844 of 2007. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has urged that the Appellant has worked as Chokidar-cum-Labourer for a period of 240 days in a calendar year in the immediately preceding year but his claim has wrongly been rejected by the Labour Court at Banaskantha in Reference (LCP) No. 399 of 1996 as well as by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 10844 of 2007.

We have gone through the award of the Labour Court and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The findings of the learned Single Judge is extracted hereunder:

Mr. H.H. Padhya, learned advocate, has appeared for the Petitioner. He submitted that the Petitioner was working with the Respondent since 1981 as Chokidar-cum-Labourer and that the learned Labour Court erred in concluding that the Petitioner had not put in work for 240 days. He relied upon a statement containing the details about the days when the Petitioner worked with the Respondent. The said statement was, as claimed by the Petitioner, produced on record before the learned Labour Court (Annexure H Page 54 of the present petition). On the basis of the said statement, Mr. Padhya claimed that the Petitioner had worked for 240 days in 1991. In light of the said factual aspect, he assailed the findings of the learned Labour Court. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court in the case between Suredranagar District Panchayat V. Dahyabhai Amarsinh reported in 2003(3) GLH 735.

In view of the contention raised by the Petitioner that the learned Labour Court has committed error in arriving at a conclusion that he had not completed work of 240 days in the immediately preceeding 12 months, this Court has examined the oral evidence of present Petitioner.

In his deposition, during the examination in chief, the Petitioner has not even made any suggestion to the effect that he had put-in work for 240 days during any year, much less during the immediately preceeding 12 months.

In his oral evidence the Petitioner has not even made reference of or relied upon the statement of which reference came to be made by Petitioner''s advocate during his submissions. In fact, during his examination in chief, he has admitted the factum about the communication dated 9.10.1992 which the Respondent had addressed to the Petitioner asking him to report for work. So as to counter the said invitation, the Petitioner alleged that after receipt of the said communication, he had gone to report for work but he was not allowed to resume his duty. It is not easily palatable that a government body like the Respondent herein would send a communication and invite the Petitioner to report for work but would not allow him to resume his work (as orally alleged by the Petitioner during his deposition). The Petitioner also did not corroborate the said allegation by any supporting or corroborating evidence. Hence, this Court is not inclined to accept the allegation of the Petitioner workman that in response to the invitation to report for work, the Petitioner reported for work, however, he was not allowed to resume the duty. This Court is also unable to hold that the learned Labour Court has committed any error in not accepting the said version of the present Petitioner. A copy of the communication dated 9.10.1992 is on record of present petition (Annexure D Page 33) and on perusal of the said communication, it comes out that the Respondent had categorically informed the Petitioner even prior to 1.9.1992 to report for work but he had not reported for work and when after 1.9.1992 also, the Petitioner failed to report for work the Respondent had, by virtue of the said letter dated 9.10.1992 asked the Petitioner to report for work within 7 days.

Reverting to the Petitioner''s claim of having completed work for 240 days, it deserves to be mentioned that not only the Respondent has not mentioned anything about completion of work for 240 days during the immediately preceding 12 months, but the Petitioner has also not made any attempt to prove the said factual aspect before the learned Labour Court. It is not even his case that he had given any application praying for order directing the Respondent to produce the relevant documents and that the same were not produced on record by the Respondent. Thus, when the Petitioner himself does not even state anything about the said factual aspect in his oral evidence and does not take any measure to require the Respondent to produce the relevant documents on record then, the reliance put by him on the judgment of the Hon''ble Division Bench in the case between Suredranagar District Panchayat (supra) becomes misplaced and the said judgment does not assist the Petitioner and/or does not take his case any further.

So far as the statement at Annexure H of present petition is concerned, on perusal of the same, it comes out that the statement shows the details of the working days of the Petitioner during the calendar year i.e. from January to December of each year i.e. the calculation is not made by considering span of 12 months from the alleged date of Petitioner''s termination and the last entry in the said statement which pertains to the year 1991 does not reflect the Petitioner''s working days during immediately preceeding 12 months calculated on and from 30th April, 1992 (as he was allegedly terminated w.e.f. 1.5.1992). The said statement and the details mentioned therein, therefore, does not rescue the Petitioner. Further, the contents of the said statement are not duly established. Even if, it is assumed for testing the submission of the Petitioner that he had worked for 240 days, then also the said fact would not assist the Petitioner or his case in any way when there is no denial of the fact that he was engaged only intermittently and his appointment was not regular i.e. the Petitioner was not engaged after following prescribed procedure for selection and recruitment.

It emerges from the award that after taking into account the oral evidence of the Petitioner and Mr. Mahendrabhai (Respondent''s witness) and documentary evidence including the Respondent''s letter dated 9.10.1992, the labour Court has recorded its conclusion that the Petitioner was being engaged intermittently as daily wager during the season when the need to supply water to the agriculturists arose, and that the Petitioner could not prove that he was orally terminated or that during the preceeding 12 months he had completed work for 240 days. Even before this Court the Petitioner has not shown any material from which it can be inferred that the findings of the Court are incorrect and/or contrary to evidence on record.

The Labour Court has also taken note of the fact that the Petitioner did not mention even during his oral evidence that he had put in work for 240 days in preceeding 12 months. The Labour Court has also taken note of the letter dated 9.10.1992 and found that the Petitioner failed to prove that he was not permitted to resume work. Having come to such conclusions the Labour Court did not find this a worthy and fit case to grant any relief and therefore rejected the reference.

In light of evidence on record and in view of the earlier discussion, the findings of the Labour Court does not appear to be incorrect and contrary to or without evidence. Closely examining the award and upon noticing that the Petitioner has not been able to prove breach of any statutory obligation and/or any illegality and arbitrariness in the action of employer or any error of law or jurisdiction in the award, I am not able to convenience myself that there is any warrant for interference with the award at the hands of this Court.

From the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, we do not find that either the Labour Court or the learned Single Judge has committed any error in rejecting the claim of the Appellant on the ground that the Appellant was a seasonal worker and did not work for a period of 240 days in the last preceding year.

This appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

In view of the order passed in the Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.