Shree Pravinchandra Ambalal Parmar vs Vs Manager, Sun Pharmaceutical

M. K. Thakker, J

This petition is filed under section 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award passed by the learned labour court, Godhra dated 04.12.2023 in Reference(T) No.112 of 2008 and order below Exh.23 dated 20.05.2023 approving the departmental inquiry and by allowing the Reference(T) No.112 of 2008 at Exh.29. The facts required for the disposal of this case is as under:-

1.1. That, petitioner-workman was serving as a production operator with the respondent since 01.05.1988 and was getting wages of Rs.2,200/- monthly. On 04.03.1993 as per the allegation made by the present petitioner, he was terminated because of the charge of theft. Thereafter, reference was filed before the learned labour court, Godhra seeking reinstatement with full back wages. On appearance of the respondent, written statement was filed below Exh.07. It is stated that the charge was proved through the departmental inquiry and thereafter, the written order was passed on 20.01.1994 on completion of the departmental inquiry. Thereafter, the reference was filed in the year 1995 which was withdrawn and subsequently after 15 years, the second reference was filed without any new cause of action. Learned labour court, after considering the evidence led by the respondent parties has passed judgment and award dismissing the reference filed by the petitioner-workman on 20.05.2023, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

Heard learned advocate Mr.Mahavir Jebaliya for learned advocate Mr.Ashish Dagli.

Learned advocate Mr.Jebaliya submits that for the charge of theft, the criminal prosecution which was lodged, wherein, he was acquitted and thereafter, without providing sufficient opportunity departmental inquiry was conducted which resulted in the order of dismissal. Learned advocate Mr.Jebaliya submits that previously when the reference was submitted in the year 1995, assurance was given by the respondent for reinstatement and therefore, the reference came to be withdrawn. Subsequently, despite serious efforts made by the present petitioner, he was not reinstated and therefore, impugned reference was filed before the learned labour court in the year 2018.

3.1. Learned advocate Mr.Jebaliya submits that learned labour court has committed error in holding that there is no live dispute and therefore, reference was rejected. Learned advocate Mr.Jebaliya submits that as there was a clear acquittal in the criminal case, instead of reinstating the petitioner to his original post, order was passed dismissing his service which was confirmed by the learned labour court. Learned advocate Mr.Jebaliya submits that without any cogent reasons, award was passed, therefore, impugned award deserves to be interfered with and petition requires to be allowed.

Considering the submission made by the learned advocate Mr.Jebaliya and the reasons assigned by the learned labour court, it transpires that the petitioner joined with the respondent on 01.05.1988 and as per the averment made in the statement of claim, he was orally terminated on 04.03.1993. On the appearance of the respondent, it was contended that the serious charge of theft was made against the present petitioner and for that, departmental inquiry was initiated and show-cause notice was issued on 28.03.1993. Thereafter, the communication was proceeded on 12.05.1993 informing the petitioner with regard to the departmental proceedings, the charges were proved, therefore second show-cause notice came to be issued on 28.11.1993 and thereafter, on 20.01.1994 the order of dismissal was passed challenging the above order, the reference came to be filed in the year 1995 which was permitted to be withdrawn on 20.05.1999, thereafter, after inordinate delay of 15 years, second reference came to be filed in the year 2008 without having any new grounds.

It further transpires from the record that neither any explanation was offered for not filing the reference, nor any documents was produced to show that dispute was live for these many years. Learned labour court on relying on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar V/s Joint Director, Sericulture Department[2015(III)CLR 937=2015(15) SCC 1] has held that from the averment it cannot be said that it is a live dispute.

In addition to that, learned labour court has also considered the order passed in the earlier reference wherein, the permission was given to withdraw the same without having any fresh cause of action the second reference was filed. So far as departmental inquiry, the learned labour court after considering the evidence in detail has held that sufficient opportunities were provided and thereafter, the order of dismissal was passed. Learned labour court has assigned detailed reasons by rejecting the reference ans this Court did not find any ground to interfere with the impugned award. Hence this petition is devoid of merits and requires to be dismissed.

Resultantly this petition is dismissed.