RUTHBEN STEVENSON CHRISTIAN Vs. SHARADBABU HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this intra-court appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant challenges the judgment and order dtd. 14/12/2021 rendered in Special Civil Application No.7100 of 2008, whereby the learned Single Judge has overturned the award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.3, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.128 of 1994.

(2.) The facts garnered from the pleadings in nutshell are that late Dr. Babulal L Desai was running Sharadbabu Hospital at Satyamnagar, Rakhial, Ahmedabad. The appellant was serving as nurse alongwith other four nurse in the said hospital. According to the appellant, her services were orally terminated on 29/07/1993 and she therefore, raised an industrial dispute which culminated into Reference LCA No.128 of 1994 before learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad. During the pendency of the said Reference, Dr. Babulal L Desai expired. An application was moved at Exhibit-26 in the said Reference to join the heirs and legal representatives of deceased-Dr. Babulal L Desai which was allowed and as such the present respondents were joined as party in the said reference.

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr.Krunal D Pandya for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the SCA whereby the impugned award was quashed and set aside. He would further submit that findings and reasoning arrived at by the learned Single Judge are not in consonance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He would further submit that the respondents were joined by virtue of the order passed below Exhibit-26. Since they were carrying immovable property of late Dr.B L Desai, they were duty to bound to adhere to the liability of Dr. B L Desai; however the learned Single Judge erroneously took the contrary view. He would further submit that since the hospital which was run by Dr. B L Desai, has been taken over by the respondents, the relationship of employee and employer as defined under the ID Act will continue between the appellant and respondent; but the learned Single Judge has failed to comprehend such legal position and has committed error of law; much less error of misunderstanding of provisions of law.