G. N. Rabari And Co vs Narendra Bhimjibhai Trivedi & 1 Other(S)

Aniruddha P. Mayee, J

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;”

The factual matrix in the present case is that the 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.

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 judgment and award is bad in law and be set aside. He submits that the present Special Civil Application be allowed.

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.

Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the document on record.

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 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.