BADESINH FATESINH MAKWANA Vs. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT SERVICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court, Ahmedabad dtd. 26/11/2018 by which the reference of the petitioner has been rejected.

(2.) The case of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that he was engaged with the respondent - State Transport Corporation as a daily wage conductor from 1998 and worked till the year 2002. It was his case that the bus services were suspended in February 2002 for a period of 15 days due to the Godhra riots. Having worked for more than 5 years, by an order dtd. 20/2/2002 at Ex. 46/1, the Corporation removed his name from the list with effect from 1/12/2000. This, according to the petitioner, was in violation of the provisions of Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') and therefore he approached the Labour Court.

(3.) Mr. Paresh Brahmbhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner would assail the award of the Labour Court and submit that the Labour Court ought to have appreciated that the respondent never communicated the order wherein the name of the petitioner had been struck off vide order at exhibit 46/1. He would submit that the Labour Court has not accepted the well known principle that when the attendance card issued by the respondent no. 1 clearly shows that the petitioner had worked after 1/12/2000, based on such documents the reasoning arrived at by the Labour Court that the petitioner had not worked for 240 days is bad.