AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In present petition petitioner has placed under challenge award dated 22.12.2006 passed by the learned Labour Court at Ahmedabad in Reference (LCD) No.801 of 1993, whereby the learned Labour Court rejected the reference.
So far as factual aspect is concerned, it has emerged from the record and from rival submissions by the learned advocates for petitioner and respondent - Trust that present petitioner i.e. original claimant before the learned Labour Court raised industrial dispute with the allegation that he was employed by the opponent Trust as Proof Reader with effect from 16.01.1992. The opponent Trust illegally and arbitrarily terminated his service by oral order on 22.10.1992 and that though he worked continuously, regularly and for more than 240 days, the opponent Trust did not comply the procedure prescribed by law. He alleged that he worked with the opponent Trust from 16.01.1992 to 22.10.1992 (i.e. for 10 months) and during that period he had worked for 240 days and therefore, his service could not have been terminated without following procedure prescribed by Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. With such allegations and submissions the claimant demanded that he should be reinstated in service. 2.1 Appropriate Government referred the dispute which was registered as Reference (LCD) No.801 of 1993.
2.2 The opponent Trust opposed the Reference and denied the allegations by the claimant. The opponent Trust contended that, actually, the claimant was employed in April 1992 and not from January 1992 as alleged by him. The opponent Trust also contended that the claimant was engaged for fixed and limited period and for short duration i.e. for about six months from April 1992 to October 1992 and that during the said period he worked only for 156 days and availed leave for 9 days. The opponent Trust contended that the total attendance of the claimant including leave period would come to 165 days and that therefore, there is no illegality committed by the opponent Trust. It was also contended that claimant was engaged for specified job and specified period and upon completion of the work of Proof Reading he was relieved and that therefore, the allegation that the opponent Trust committed breach of statutory provisions is incorrect. With such submissions the Trust urged that the Reference may be rejected.
2.3 Upon completion of pleadings by both the sides, learned Labour Court received and recorded evidence. When the contesting parties closed their evidence, learned Labour Court heard submissions of learned advocates of the contesting parties. Thereafter, learned Labour Court considered the material available on record and rival submissions and passed impugned award with above mentioned directions.
Mr. Mankad, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly restricted his submissions and claimed that the opponent Trust had opposed the petitioner''s case with regard to date of appointment. He submitted that according to the claimant, he was employed with effect from 16.01.1992, whereas the Trust claimed that he was engaged in April 1992. Mr. Mankad, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that to support his claim that he had joined the opponent Trust in January 1992, the claimant had relied on letter dated 22.03.2006 given by Provident Fund Organization, wherein the Provident Fund Organization stated that the record of Organization showed that the person whose provident fund account number was "GJ 19640/2010" was member of Provident Fund Organization since 16.01.1992. Mr. Mankad, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly submitted that except the said document the claimant did not place and could not place any other material on record to support his claim that he had joined the opponent Trust in January 1992. He submitted that if the claimant''s case that he joined the service of the opponent Trust in January 1992 is accepted, then, it would also establish that the claimant had worked for 240 days. He submitted that the claimant has crossed the age of superannuation before long time and therefore, all that the claimant now expects is appropriate and reasonable compensation.
The submissions by the petitioner are opposed by the opponent Trust. Learned advocate for the opponent Trust reiterated the factual details mentioned in written statement. He submitted that the claimant had worked only for 156 days and that he joined the Trust in April 1992 and that therefore, the allegations about breach of statutory provisions or any illegality in discontinuing the claimant, is incorrect and unjustified.
I have considered rival submissions and material on record as well as impugned award.
According to the learned counsel for the claimant, the first issue of dispute between the parties is with regard to date of joining of the claimant in the service with the opponent Trust and second point of dispute between the parties is with regard to the attendance of the claimant i.e. total number of days for which the claimant worked with the opponent Trust. 6.1 So far as the dispute with regard to date of joining is concerned, it is not in dispute that the claimant did not place on record appointment order to establish the date on which he joined the service with the opponent Trust. It is also relevant to note that the claimant neither placed on record any other document to establish his claim and he also did not examine any co-worker to support his claim that he had joined the service in January 1992. 6.2 On the other hand, the opponent Trust also did not place any material on record except the letter addressed by the Trust to the Provident Fund Organization, under which the opponent Trust had forwarded the Challan for depositing the provident fund contribution. On the basis of the said communication addressed to the Provident Fund Commissioner, it is claimed that in February-1992 (i.e. the period for which the provident fund contribution was forwarded), the name of the claimant is not mentioned which fact establishes that in February-1992 the claimant was not in service of opponent Trust. 6.3 The said two documents cannot lead the Court to any final conclusion since it is the claimant who alleged that he had joined the service with the opponent Trust on 16.01.1992, then, the initial obligation to establish the said factual aspect was of the claimant. The claimant failed to place on record any cogent evidence, either documentary or oral to support his claim.
At this stage, it is relevant to take into account other factual aspect asserted by the opponent Trust. The Trust claimed before the learned Labour Court that during the period when the claimant was engaged by the opponent Trust, he had worked for 156 days and availed leave for 9 days. With the said details, the opponent Trust claimed that the claimant worked with the Trust for 165 days. On this count, it is pertinent to note that the claimant did not place any evidence on record to controvert the said factual aspect viz. that he had worked only for 165 days during entire tenure with the opponent Trust. 7.1 If that be the fact, then, the dispute with regard to date of joining in service of opponent Trust would pale into insignificance, in as much as even if it is assumed that the claimant joined the service with the opponent Trust in January 1992, then also, provisions under Section 25-F would not be attracted in case of claimant in light of the fact that he had not worked with the opponent Trust for one year and for 240 days in preceeding 12 months. When the said requirement was not complied with i.e. when the claimant had not worked for 240 days in preceeding 12 months then the provisions under Section 25-F would not be attracted and it cannot be said that the opponent Trust committed breach of Section 25-F of the Act.
7.2 In this background, when award of the learned Labour Court is examined, then, it comes out that the learned Labour Court has recorded findings of fact, after appreciation of evidence, that the claimant, on one hand, failed to establish that he fulfilled the conditions for attracting Section 25-F and on the other hand, the claimant also failed to establish that the opponent Trust committed breach of Section 25-F or Section 25-G or Section 25-H.
During hearing of present petition, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any material on record to convince this Court that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court and/or appreciation of evidence of the learned Labour Court, is perverse. 8.1 Any ground to interfere with the findings of fact and final conclusion recorded by the learned Labour Court is not made out by the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate and establish that the impugned award suffers from any infirmity and error of law or jurisdiction 8.2 In this view of the matter, the petition fails and needs to be rejected.
Consequently following order is passed: (a) Any ground to interfere with the findings of fact and final conclusion is not made out. (b) The petitioner has failed to establish that the conclusion recorded by the learned Labour Court is perverse or that the court has committed error in law and jurisdiction. Therefore, petition deserves to be rejected and is accordingly, rejected. Rule is discharged.