KOPINBHAI KANTILAL CHOKSHI Vs. LAXMI JEWELLARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. U.T. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Dipak Dave, learned advocate for respondents.

(2.) Under challenge in this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is the award dtd. 26/9/2018 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmedabad by which the reference of the petitioner workman has been rejected.

(3.) The case of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that he was working as a skilled worker with the respondent no. 1 and its three other associate enterprises for the past 25 years. He was earning Rs.16,000.00 per month and his services were terminated with effect from 2/11/2010. Therefore the petitioner raised an industrial dispute that his termination was in violation of Ss. 25 F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). In support of his stand before the Labour Court, the petitioner examined himself. It was his case that he was working with the respondent no. 1 jewellery outlet for over a period of 25 years and his services were terminated. He produced various documentary evidence at Exs. 33, 34 and 36. The case of the employer - respondent no. 1 was that infact the services of the petitioner were not terminated with effect from 2/11/2010 but he had prior thereto abandoned his services and joined another jewellery outlet. The Labour Court based on the appreciation of evidence more particularly the additional affidavit in terms of the testimony of the workman and the letters produced by the employer at Marks 19/1 to 19/3 found that the petitioner was infact prior to his so-called termination engaged with other jewellery outlets and had infact tried to mislead the Labour Court by filing an affidavit that he was not gainfully employed. The Labour Court found that despite having received letters Marks 19/1 to 19/3 from the employer asking the petitioner to return to the fold he neither responded to them nor addressed any letter to report for the job. The Labour Court found that the stand of the worker was clear that he had left/abandoned the job for better prospects with other jewellery stores which was an admitted fact and therefore the reference was rejected.