TALUKA PANCHAYAT VISNAGAR Vs. ICHHABEN SHIVRAM DAVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent was employed as a Waterwoman by the appellant. Her service came to be terminated on February 17, 1983. THE respondent challenged the termination of service by filing an appeal before the District Development Officer which was dismissed. She then filed the writ petition which was later withdrawn for the purpose of approaching the State Civil Services Tribunal. THE Tribunal also dismissed the respondent's appeal on the ground that the respondent had crossed the age of superannuation long back and the termination of her service in 1983 was because of superannuation. Apparently, the respondent did not give up even then. She raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court. THE history of earlier litigation which ended against the respondent in the manner earlier stated, was not disclosed by the respondent before the Labour Court. THE Labour Court gave an award in favour of the respondent directing reinstatement with back wages. THE writ petition filed by the appellant in the Gujarat High Court for quashing the Labour Court's award has been dismissed. Hence this appeal by special leave.

(2.) THE above facts which are borne out from authentic documents in the form of decisions of competent authorities are sufficient to indicate that reference made to the Labour Court after the dispute had been earlier adjudicated in the manner indicated, was clearly incompetent. THE respondent should have disclosed the material facts, but she did not do so and the Labour Court proceeded to make an award in her favour in an incompetent reference. It appears that this situation arose also on account of the failure of the appellant to produce the relevant documents before the Labour Court. However, the High Court before which the documents were produced, erroneously ignored the same to dismiss the writ petition. On these facts, the award of the Labour Court cannot be sustained and must be set aside.