NIRMALDAN NARHARIDAN GADHVI Vs. NARMADA NIGAM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, being aggrieved of the judgement and award dated 25th February, 2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Surendranagar in Reference (LCS) No.323 of 1992, whereby the learned Presiding Officer was pleased to reject the Reference of the petitioner, has approached this Court by way of this petition.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was employed as a daily -wager Chowkidar along with one Ramjibhai Babubhai Valand and Akbarkhan Mohammadkhan. However, the services of the petitioner had been orally terminated on 31st September, 1990 and, therefore, he was constrained to raise a dispute, which is adjudicated by the impugned judgement and award of the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court.

(3.) Mrs. D.T.Shah, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Presiding Officer has committed an error in recording the contradictory findings in the impugned judgement and award and, therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set aside by this Court. The learned Advocate invited the attention of this Court to the contents of paragraph -6, which is the only paragraph wherein the learned Presiding Officer has dealt with the rival contentions of both the sides. The learned Advocate demonstrated that the learned Presiding Officer has committed a grave error by recording contradictory findings in the said paragraph. For example, it is recorded that, 'while terminating the services of any workman, one month's written notice or in lieu thereof, wages for one month is to be paid. Wages at the rate of 15 days for every completed year of service is also to be paid by way of compensation and besides, any other amount, which is due and payable to a workman, is also to be paid. Such amount is to be paid on the day the services are terminated.' The learned Presiding Officer has then recorded a finding to the effect that, 'the applicant, petitioner, without giving any intimation to the Divisional Office has left the work and, therefore, the amount, which was payable to him, was paid.' These findings are self contradictory inasmuch as if the applicant, petitioner, had left the work without giving any intimation, how any payment could have been made to the applicant, which is not the case of the department even. (emphasis supplied)