STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MAHENDRASINH RANUBHA GOHIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present special civil application is filed for the following reliefs:-

(2.) The factual matrix in the present case is as follows:-

(3.) Learned AGP Mr.Akash Gupta appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondent- workman was not a permanent worker and was being called upon as and when the need of driver arose. He further submits that the respondent-workman was paid as per the work done by him. He submits that it is claimed by the respondent-workman that he was terminated in the year 2004 but in the present case, the Reference came to be preferred in the year 2008. He submits that there is unexplained delay of 4 years in preferring the reference. He submits that the respondent-workman has failed to discharge the burden to show that he had continuously worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months from the date of his termination. He submits that the Labour Court has erroneously held that the petitioners have committed breach of the provisions of Sec. 25(F), 25(G) and 25(H) of the I.D.Act. He submits that the respondent-workman has not given any details with respect of work done by him and in which office of the petitioners and for how many days. It is submitted that in absence of such details, it cannot be held that the respondent- workman has worked in the office of petitioners. He submits that the learned Labour Court has not properly appreciated the evidence brought on record and therefore also the impugned judgment and award cannot be sustained. He submits that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be set aside.