Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.Y. KOGJE, J.
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Bhavik Bhupatray Pandya – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No.18173 of 2021, 19601, 18175, 19605, 18177, 19610, 18178, 19616, 18181, 19607, 18183, 18546, 18332, 18333, 18354, 18193, 19604, 18265, 19612, 18268, 19619, 18271, 19609, 18335, 19602, 18964, 19618, 19073, 19615, 19613 of 2021, 1580, 1876, 1860 of 2022
Decided on : 14-11-2022
Labour Court - Industrial Disputes Act - Section 25(B), 25(F), 25(G), 25(H) - The court discussed the continuous service of the workmen, burden of proof, delay in raising industrial dispute, and the nature of evidence presented. The court found that the petitioner-Department failed to produce necessary evidence regarding the attendance of the workmen, and the respondent-workman had discharged his burden of proof. The court also found that there was no evidence to support the claim of the workmen for back-wages. The court dismissed all the petitions and maintained the award of the Labour Court in the respective references.
Fact of the Case:
The petitions were filed against the award of the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in various References. The workmen claimed continuous service and challenged their termination. The State Government contended that the workmen had not worked for more than 240 days and there was a delay in raising the industrial dispute. The workmen argued that the Department had not produced necessary evidence regarding their attendance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner-Department failed to produce necessary evidence regarding the attendance of the workmen and that the workmen had discharged their burden of proof. The court also found that there was no evidence to support the claim of the workmen for back-wages.
Issues: Continuous service, burden of proof, delay in raising industrial dispute, nature of evidence presented, claim for back-wages
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner-Department failed to produce necessary evidence regarding the attendance of the workmen, and the workmen had discharged their burden of proof. The court also found that there was no evidence to support the claim of the workmen for back-wages.
Final Decision: All the petitions filed both by the Employer State & the workman were dismissed, and the award of the Labour Court in the respective references was maintained.
ORDER :
1. This batch of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are filed against the award of the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in various References. Parties to the reference are common, where reference has been made by the workman on one side and against Deputy Executive Engineer of Shetrunji Left Bank Canal Sub-Division of Bhavnagar. All these references by various awards have been disposed of and are now the subject matter of challenge both by the Employer-State Government and also by the individual workman. Therefore, each award is the subject matter of challenge in cross petitions. The details in Tabular form are given as under:
| Sr. no. | S.C.A. Case No. Filed by the Government | S.C.A. Case No. filed by the workman/Party | NAME OF Workman | Date of JOINING -as per Muster Roll | Date of DISCHARGE By The Said Party - or - By AWARD of Labor Court. | Re. L.C.B. No. And Date of Admission/Registration | Date of AWARD of Labour Court and Details |
|
| Special Civil Application Nos. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) |
| 1. | 18173/2021 | 19601/2021 | Bhavik Bhupatrai Pandy | 04/03/1995 | 20/04/2013 | 135/2016 Dt. 24/10/2016 | Award Dt. 22/04/2021 As mentioned in it, the Order is passed to count service of Applicant as continue service from the date of discharge and to re-instate in service except the salary of un-attended days. Also it is directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as cost. |
| 2 | 18175/2021 | 19605/2021 | Girvansinh Mavubha Vala | 14/01/1997 | 20/04/2013 | 133/2016 Dt. 24/10/2016 | Award Dt. 22/04/2021 As mentioned in it, the Order is passed to count service of Applicant as continue service from the date of discharge and to re-instate in service except the salary of un-attended days. Also it is directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as cost. |
| 3 | 18177/2021 | 19610/2021 | Suresh Vanmali Chauhan | 19/02/1996 | 20/04/2013 | 138/2016 Dt. 24/10/2017 | Award Dt. 22/04/2021 As mentioned in it, the Order is passed to count service of Applicant as continue service from the date of discharge and to re-instate in service except the salary of un-attended days. Also it is directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as cost |
| 4 | 18178/2021 | 19616/2021 | Dana Khoda Karit | 10/10/1992 | 20/04/2013 | 141/2016 Dt. 15/11/2016 | Award Dt. 22/04/2021 As mentioned in it, the Order is passed to count service of Applicant as continue service from the date of discharge and to re-instate in service except the salary of un-attended days. Also it is directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as cost. |
| 5 | 18181/2021 | 19607/2021 | Gobar Bala Chauhan | 18/04/1996 | 20/04/2013 | 134/2016 Dt. 24/10/2016 | Award Dt. 22/04/2021 As mentioned in it, the Order is passed to count service of Applicant as continue service from the date of discharge and to re-instate in service except the salary of un-attended days. Also it is directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as cost |
| 6 | 18193/2021 | 19604/2021 | Balashank ar Tuljaram Jani | 08/04/1997 | 20/04/2013 | 131/2016 Dt. 24/10/2016 | Award Dt. 22/04/2021 As mentioned in it, the Order is passed to count service of Applicant as continue service from the date of discharge and to re-instate in service except the salary of un-attended days. Also it is directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as cost. |
| 7 | 18265/2021 | 19612/2021 | Harpalsinh Ajinsinh Vala | 13/12/1996 | 20/04/2013 | 139/2016 Dt. 24/10/2016 | Award Dt. 22/04/2021 As mentioned in it, the Order is passed to count service of Applicant as continue service from the date of discharge and to re-instate in service except the salary of un-attended days. Also it is directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as cost |
| 8 | 18268/2021 | 19619/2021 | Jaydipsin h Pratapsin h Vala | 19/02/1996 | 20/04/2013 | 136/2016 Dt. 24/10/2016 | Award Dt. 22/04/2021 As mentioned in it, the Or |
Labour Court has held against the workman on the basis that the documents like pay sleep, muster roll etc. are not produced. But, at this juncture, it is require to peruse the oral evidence of the wo....
Labour law – Reinstatement - Granting of relief of reinstatement after such a long gap will not serve any purpose and, therefore, this Court is of the view that if the order to grant compensation
In a case where Section 25-F of the Act applies the workman is bound to prove that he had been in continuous service of 240 days during twelve months preceding the order of termination; in a case whe....
The court upheld that the burden of proving continuous service and employee-employer relationship lies with the workman, which was not met, leading to dismissal of the claim based on delay and lack o....
Decision of the Labour Court in granting 20% back wages is in consonance with the facts and circumstances of the case as well as it is legally sustainable. Therefore, the impugned award passed by the....
Delay in filing a reference does not preclude adjudication on merits, especially when the dispute remains alive.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the employer must follow the relevant provisions of the I.D. Act before terminating the service of an employee, and failure to do so may entit....
The burden of proof for continuous service of 240 days rests on the workman, and mere self-serving statements are insufficient to establish this claim.
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
