IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4422 of 2024 ==============================================================

S M INDUSTRIES Versus BIRENDRASINH GANESHSINH ==============================================================

Appearance:

MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY(1060) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==============================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.

PRACHCHHAK Date : 01/12/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned award dated 26.07.2016 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 1290 of 2004 below Exh. 22, the impugned order dated 03.11.2018 passed by Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Recovery Application No. 293 of 2017 below Exh. 9 and the impugned order dated 25.02.2020 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Recovery Application No. 03 of

2019.

2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the petition are that, the respondent-employee was serving as permanent operator in Rolling Department since last five years. Thereafter, he was terminated from the services w.e.f. 28.11.2003. The dispute came to be filed before the Conciliation Officer, Ahmedabad, which could not be resolved and therefore, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Ahmedabad. The Labour Court vide order dated 30.04.2007 passed in Reference (LCA) No. 1290 of 2004 below Exh. 14 has partly allowed the reference and ordered to reinstate the respondent with continuity of services along with 50% back wages. That, the present petitioner has preferred an application for restoration being Miscellaneous Application No. 313 of 2007 before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad which was allowed and the reference was ordered to be restored. Thereafter, after hearing the parties the Labour Court has allowed the reference and ordered to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service along with 50% back wages. The present respondent has preferred an application being Recovery Application No. 293 of 2017 and the Labour Court directed the present petitioner to pay sum of Rs. 2,31,000/- to the respondent. The respondent has filed an application being Recovery Application No. 3 of 2019 for issuance of recovery certificate and thereafter the Labour Court vide order dated 25.02.2020 directed to issue recovery certificate to recover an amount from the petitioner. The District Collector, Ahmedabad has initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to recovery certificate issued by the Labour Court. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has received information that the respondent has made false statement with regard to his unemployment during the proceedings before the Labour Court. The petitioner has also received the documents that for the period from 01.07.2014 to 31.05.2017, the respondent has worked with Mahendra and Company and thereafter the respondent has joined the duty with Swastik Steels Industries w.e.f. 23.05.2018.

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the petitioner filed the present petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

5. Mr. Prabhakar Upadyay, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the orders by the Labour Court are illegal and unjust and contrary to the provisions of law. He has submitted that the Labour Court has committed an error in not considering the evidence available on record while deciding the reference and the findings recorded by the Labour Court are perverse. He has submitted that the statement made by the petitioner in the written statement is also not considered by the Labour Court. He has submitted that the respondent was not employed by the petitioner but he was deployed through the contractor, and this fact has not been taken into consideration by the Labour Court. That, the respondent has not completed 240 days of service in a preceding year