JAGDISHBHAI BHAGWATBHAI MAHALE Vs. GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner challenging the decision of the Labour Court in Reference (T) No.1284 of 2001 dtd. 19/9/2016. The order sheet indicates that on several occasions, the matter has been adjourned at the request of learned advocate for the petitioner. On the last occasion also, the matter had been adjourned. Today also, when the matter is called out, learned advocate for the petitioner is absent and therefore, considering the matter to be of 2017 pending on admission board board, the matter is taken up for hearing with the assistance of learned advocate appearing for the respondent.

(2.) The facts of the case would indicate that the petitioner claimed to be appointed in due course at Typist and therefore, having continued for long period claimed to be a regular employee and on 1/1/1998, the petitioner has been illegally terminated.

(3.) From the pleadings, it appears that the case of the petitioner is that the Labour Court has not taken into consideration the evidence of the witnesses, who were examined on behalf of the petitioner with regard to his employment and working in the establishment as a Typist, at the same time the respondent had also failed to produce any record with regard to the attendance of the petitioner in the form of attendance register, pay slip, seniority and other relevant documents which otherwise would be in custody of the respondent-Board itself. Further, the Labour Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of co-employees who were also discharging their duty who have indicated presence of petitioner in the office who claimed that the petitioner was also duly working as a Typist in their office.