RAJUBHAI MAANSINGBHAI SOLANKI Vs. RANGE FOREST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and award dated 02.01.2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labuor Court, Amreli in Reference (L.C.A.) No.153/2001, by which the Labour Court has dismissed the said reference.

(2.) The petitioner was serving as daily wager Chokidar and even according to him he worked for only 13 months and was paid the wages at the rate of Rs.40 per month. Even according to the petitioner, his services came to be terminated orally on and from 01.06.1986. That after a period of 15 years, the petitioner raised industrial dispute challenging his alleged termination with effect from 01.06.1986, which was referred to Labour Court, Amreli which was numbered as Reference (L.C.A.) No.153/2001. On appreciation of evidence and considering the fact that industrial dispute was raised after a period of 15 years, the Labour Court held that there was no retrenchment and/or termination at all but the petitioner voluntarily abandoned the services and consequently the Labour Court dismissed the said reference. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Amreli dated 02.01.2009 passed in Reference (L.C.A.) No.153/2001, petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Shri Jadeja, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently submitted that even in the cross-examination, the witness who came to be examined on behalf of the respondent has admitted that at the time of termination, no seniority list was maintained. Therefore, it is to be presumed that the petitioner was terminated. Therefore, it is submitted that finding given by the Labour Court that the petitioner had voluntarily abandoned the service is contrary to the evidence on record. It is submitted that at the relevant time when the services of the petitioner was terminated, no retrenchment compensation was paid though he completed 240 days of service and thus, there was committed breach of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the Labour Court ought to have allowed the reference by directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner.