RANGE FOREST OFFICER Vs. BHURABHAI RAMBHAI JALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Jyoti Bhatt for the petitioner. The present petition is against the judgment and award of the Labour Court whereby the Labour Court has directed reinstatement of the respondent-workman on his original post without any back wages. The workman was employed as labourer to do work of digging of soil, watering to the plants and such other related work, posted at Upleta under the office of the Forest Department. He was engaged in service since 16th October, 1996 and his services came to be dispensed with in 2001.

(2.) According to the case of the workman, he was not permitted to be on duty at Vadali on 01st January, 2002 and his services came to be illegally terminated. It was his case that he had put in continuous service and termination of his service therefore violated the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the petitioner, the workman was transferred to a different place called Vadali on 21st December, 2001 where he did not present himself. However, thereafter no notice was issued to the workman calling upon him to resume duty. The respondent was employed on daily wage basis. Before the Labour Court he deposed at Exhibit 17 to give his evidence ascertaining his case.

(3.) The Labour Court recorded that workman was taken on service with effect from 16th October, 1996 and the petitioner-employer had not disputed the factum of workman's service having been taken since that date upto 2001. According to the workman he works since 1996 to 2001. This oral evidence led by the workman regarding he having worked for the said period was not refuted by the employer by leading any evidence in that regard. The employer did not produce any details about the muster roll, salary statement or any other details to show that the workman had not worked for the period. In the circumstances, the Labour Court passed the award. It held that the employer had failed to prove that the workman had abandoned service and further failed to lead any evidence to dislodge the case of the employer.