Point of Law: Termination of service It cannot be presumed that any junior is considered without there being any evidence on record and the learned Single Judge has therefore rightly come to the conclusion that the Labour Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that there is breach of Sections 25G and 25H of the Act

JUDGMENT :

R.M. CHHAYA, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 7.3.2018 passed by learned Single Judge (Coram: Mr. K.M. Thaker, J.) in Special Civil Application no. 95 of 2015, the appellant–original respondent no.1 has preferred this intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

2. Following facts emerge from the record of the appeal :-

The appellant came to be appointed as daily wager on the post of Valve Operator-cum-Pumping Reporter by the respondents and his services came to be retrenched. The appellant herein preferred a Reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for the sake of brevity), which came to be registered as Reference LCJ no.125 of 2006 before the Labour Court, Junagadh. It was the case of the appellant before the Labour Court that the appellant came to be appointed as daily wager on 15.05.2002 on daily wages of Rs.94.50 at Ozat-2 Dam, more particularly, at Village Badalpur as Valve Operator-cum-Pumping Reporter. It was the case of the appellant that his services were terminated by the respondents without following provisions of Section 25F of the Act and though he had completed 240 days in service, his services are required to be regularized as prayed for in the Reference. Oral as well as documentary evidence came to be adduced by both the parties to the Reference. The Labour Court, by judgment and award dated 23.09.2014, partly allowed the Reference and directed the respondents to reinstate the appellant at his original post with continuity of service, but without backwages and also imposed cost of Rs.1,000/-. The Labour Court, by the impugned judgment and award, came to the conclusion that there is no breach of Section 25F of the Act. However, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that there is breach of Sections 25G and 25H of the Act and allowed the Reference, as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the respondents herein preferred a Writ Petition being Special Civil Application no.95 of 2015 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India on various grounds.

3. Various contentions were raised before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge, having examined the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there is no breach of Sections 25G and 25H and allowed the petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the present intra-Court appeal is filed by the workman.

4. Heard Mr. Samir B. Gohil, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Vishrut Jani, learned advocate for the respondents on advance copy.

5. Mr. Samir B. Gohil, learned advocate for the appellant has taken this Court through the factual matrix arising out of this appeal as well as relied upon the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court and contended as under :-

5.1 That, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the work is still going on and juniors to the appellant are being continued.

5.2 It was next contended by Mr. Gohil, learned advocate for the appellant that the respondents had not maintained the seniority list and therefore, there is clear breach of Sections 25G and 25H of the Act.

5.3 It was further contended that the respondents have not followed the principle of last come first go and therefore, the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge are erroneous and de hors the evidence on record.

5.4 It was also contended that the learned Single Judge has wrongly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surendranagar District Panchayat Vs. Dahyabhai Amarsinh, reported in 2006 (2) GLR 1014.

On the aforesaid grounds, it was contended by Mr. Gohil, learned advocate for the appellant that the appeal requires consideration and the judgment and award of the Labour Court deserves to be restored.

6. Per contra, Mr. Jani, learned advocate for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment and order. Mr. Jani submitted that the learned Single Judge has rig