ORAL ORDER

1. The present writ petition impugns the award dated 16.01.2024 passed in Reference ( LCR) No. 38 of 2013 passed by the learned Labour Court, Morbi, whereby the workman has been reinstated without continuity of service from the date of raising of the dispute and 10% back wages.

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11578 of 2024

2. Learned AGP Mr. Shivam Dixit appearing for the State submits that the learned Labour Court has failed to appreciate that the respondent workman has never worked at any point of time with the petitioner. He submits that the petitioners have produced a chart in respect of the respondent workman which shows that the respondent workman has worked only for 85 days from the year 1993 to 1998. He submits that there is no name of the respondent in the muster roll nor he has worked for any relevant point of time other than what has been admitted. He submits that in support of his claim, the respondent workman has not produced any documentary evidence. That the respondent workman has only given his oral deposition. It is submitted that there is nothing on record to prove that the respondent workman has worked for 240 days in the year preceeding his alleged termination. He submits that in absence of any cogent evidence on record in respect of the service period of the respondent workman, the reference ought to have been dismissed and no relief could have been granted. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition be allowed.

3. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. N.D. Songara appearing on behalf of learned advocate Mr. Mukesh T. Mishra for the respondent workman submits that the respondent had joined the service of the petitioner on 06.11.1993 and had worked till 20.12.1998, i.e. for the period of more than 5 years. He submits that the respondent workman came to be orally terminated on 20.12.1998 without following due procedure of law. He submits that the respondent workman has stated these facts clearly in his oral deposition which has not been shaken in the cross examination. He submits that further the respondent workman had filed application Exh.11 for direction to the petitioner to produce the records from the year 1992 till 2003 in respect of the attendance sheet and pay slips as well as seniority list. He submits that no such document came to be produced by the petitioner. He submits that the petitioners have produced only a chart on the basis of muster roll maintained by them. However, in their evidence, the said chart has not been substantiated by any documentary evidence. He submits that upon proper appreciation of evidence, the learned Labour Court has partly allowed the reference. He submits that the writ petition therefore be dismissed.

4. Heard learned counsels for the parties, considered the submissions and perused the documents on record.

5. The facts in the present case reveal that the respondent workman has worked with the petitioner from 06.11.1993 till 20.12.1998 for a period of more than 5 years when his service came to be orally terminated without following any due procedure of law. In the present case, the petitioner has preferred the reference after a period of around 10 years on 05.03.2013. The Assistant Labour Commissioner has referred the dispute by communication dated 17.04.2013 to the learned Labour Court, Morbi. The parties have led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their contentions. The petitioner has not produced any muster roll or attendance sheet in support of its contention that the respondent workman had not worked with them for the said period. By Exh.11 such documents were called from the petitioner to be placed on record. However, for the reasons best known, the petitioners have not produced any copy of the muster roll or attendance sheet to controvert the claim of the respondent workman. Further, the petitioners have only produced the statement in form of chart showing that the respondent workman had worked for 11 days in 1993, 44 days in 1997 and 30 day