Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.P. THAKER, J.
VIRENDRAPRASAD RAMNARAYAN SHUKLA - Appellant
Versus
SERVICES AUTO PETROL PUMP - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6517 of 2010
Decided On : 09-09-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 and 227 - Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Sections 25-G and 25-H - Pump Operator - Terminated Service - Prayed For Consequential Benefits - Whether Kishan Dubey or Krishnachandra Dave were serving on petrol pump - Whether name of petitioner was mentioned in muster roll - Whether Salary was being paid to petitioner by obtaining his signature in salary sheet.
Finding of the Court:
He has admitted that no written document was being given to workman for his attendance - He has stated that he has never produced salary sheet as well as attendance sheet as those documents are not available - Regarding theft, he has stated that he came to know of incidence on next day at 7 a.m. and he was informed by Supervisor - He has also stated that petitioner herein has not tendered any written confession for alleged theft - However, he has denied suggestion that workman was serving as Pump Operator on permanent basis since last ten years - He has stated that no benefit under Provident Fund Scheme or ESI Scheme were afforded to him as he was casual employee - He has admitted that no such benefits were provided to all casual labourers - As observed earlier, employer was not providing any document, even appointment letter to casual labourers nor identity card to such workers, then version of workman is acceptable - Considering special facts and circumstances of this case, it clearly transpires that Labour Court has committed serious error of facts while appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record - Hence, impugned award is required to be set aside - Request made by learned advocate for respondent for remand of matter to Labour Court is concerned, it appears from record that there is specific stand taken during oral evidence of partner of petrol pump that documentary evidence is not available with firm, since almost 13 years have passed at time of deposition - So far as point of reinstatement and continuity of service and back-wages is concerned, it is an admitted fact that service of workman was terminated and he has filed reference after five years - Respondents are hereby directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation towards full and final settlement in lieu of reinstatement, continuity of service and back-wages to workman.
Result: Petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, who is aggrieved by award dated 20.2.2009 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmedabad, in Reference (LCA) No.186 of 2000, whereby the reference came to be rejected. The petitioner has sought for following reliefs:-
(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and Allow this petition;
(B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned Award dated 20.02.2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmedabad, below Exhibit-34 in Reference (LCA) No.186 of 2000 (Annexure-A) and further may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner on his original post and to pay back wages with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fairness of things;
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordship be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the Award (Annexure-A) and further be pleased to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner on service subject to the final outcome of the present petition, in the interest of justice;
(D) Your Lordship be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit, just and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.”
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as a Pump Operator with the respondent since last ten years and was being paid Rs.1,000/- per month as salary. It is also contended that he was not paid minimum wages as prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act and, therefore, he made demand. According to him, the respondent has terminated his service orally with effect from 27.7.1995 without following due process of law. Being aggrieved with such action, he has preferred reference by filing statement of claim and prayed for declaring termination of his service as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and prayed to direct the respondent to reinstate him in service with backwages and continuity of service and has also prayed for consequential benefits.
3. The respondent has filed its written statement vide Exh.12 and has denied the averments made by the petitioner and put up the defence that the respondent did not terminate him but he himself has abandoned work from 30.7.1995 voluntarily. The respondent has also contended that the petitioner was involved in theft and, therefore, FIR was lodged against him and on that basis the workman has tendered his resignation.
4. On the basis of the pleading of the parties and the evidence led, Labour Court has ultimately dismissed the reference.
5. Heard learned advocate Shri Yogen Pandya for the petitioner and Ms.Yogini Parikh, learned advocate for the respondent through video conferencing.
6. Mr.Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner herein has contended that the workman has specifically stated that the workman did not tender resignation and the respondent did not give him any document to show that he was working on the petrol pump since last ten years. He also contended that the workman has categorically denied all the averments made by the respondent and has submitted that the workman has worked for 240 days in a calendar year and since no documents were produced by the respondent, adverse inference needs to be drawn against the respondent. He submitted that the services of the petitioner came to be terminated without following due process of law. He has invited the attention of the Court to the statement of demand made by the petitioner before the Labour Court, wherein the petitioner has put forward his demand that he was serving since last ten years and he was being paid Rs.1,000/- per month as salary. He has also invited the attention of the Court to paragraph 5, 6 and 7 of the claim of the petitioner and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
