IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that termination without a departmental inquiry is illegal, and reinstatement is justified when the employer fails to present evidence despite multiple opportunities.

JUDGMENT :

M. K. Thakker, J.

1. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, labour court No.4, Vadodara in Miscellaneous Application No.23 of 2018 (In Reference Case No.289 of 2003) dated 27.08.2021 whereby, the application preferred by the present petitioner under Rule 26(a) of the ID Act came to be rejected and also challenging the judgment and award dated 28.09.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, learned Court No.4, Vadodara in reference No.289 of 2003 whereby, the directions were issued to reinstate the respondent-workman without back wages and with continuity of service.

2. It is the case of the present petitioner that respondent herein, has filed the reference before the learned labour court, Vadodara being reference No.289 of 2003 claiming that he was appointed as a Driver on daily wages and in the month of March, 2002 due to Godhra train incident of communal riots, the respondent came to be arrested by the police on 27.04.2002 and thereafter, released on bail on 03.07.2002.

3. On approaching to the petitioner for resuming the duty on 04.07.2002 a show cause notice was served to the present respondent which was replied by the present respondent and thereafter, service came to be terminated by the present petitioner-corporation on 04.07.2002. On raising the Industrial Disputes before the learned labour court praying to reinstate with full back wages and continuity of services, learned labour court has awarded Rs.65000/- lump-sum compensation. In view of the reinstatement alongwith back wages. Challenging the above order, the petition came to be filed before this Court being SCA No.1592 of 2014 wherein, with the consent of both the parties, this Court has remanded back the matter to the learned labour court vide order dated 16.12.2016 with a direction to conclude the proceedings preferably on or before 30.09.2017. On remanding back the matter, learned court had issued Notice to both the parties and they appeared, wherein, the workman has filed the examination-in-chief below Exh.30, however, the petitioner-corporation did not remain present for the cross-examination of the workman. Thereafter, vide order dated 06.05.2017 right of cross-examination came to be closed by the learned labour court below Ex.31. No evidence was led for the petitioner-corporation, therefore application below Ex.32 came to be filed by the workman-Union praying to close the right to produce evidence which came to be allowed vide order dated 15.07.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner-corporation filed an application below Ex.34 for reopening the right of the corporation for cross-examining the respondent workman and to reopen the right of the petitioner to produce the evidence, however, after filing the application, again the advocate of the petitioner corporation remained absent and therefore, learned labour court dismissed the application below Ex.34. Thereafter, also petitioner remained absent and therefore, stage of the final argument was also closed vide order below Ex.35. Learned labour court, as per the directions issued by this Court has concluded the proceedings and passed award on 28.09.2017 allowing the reference of the workman granting the reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages.

4. The petitioner-corporation preferred an application being Miscellaneous Application No.23 of 2018 before the learned labour court for restoration of reference under Rule 26(a) of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat Rules) Act, which was also rejected by the learned labour court vide order dated 28.09.2017. The petitioner has challenged both the orders that is passed in main reference as well as the application under Rule 26(a) of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat Rules) Act by way of present petition.

5. Heard learned advocate Mr.Nilesh Pandya for the petitioner and Mr.Darshit Thakkar for the respondent.

6. Learned advocate Mr.Pandya submits that