SATISHKUMAR P MADALANI Vs. TALUKA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice was issued to the other side for final disposal of the matter at the motion hearing stage. The respondent establishment is properly represented. The matter is admitted for hearing.

(2.) Shri Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgement delivered by the learned Single Judge suffers from material irregularity and perversity when a finding in para 9 is recorded that the workman had already filed reply in which it had already been stated that he (employee) was an employee under the relief operation work and he was gainfully employed somewhere else. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that no reply was filed to the Special Civil Application nor any affidavit was filed by the present appellant. So far as his claim petition, details of claim before the Labour Court are concerned the appellant did not make any admission that he was employed under relief operation work. His further submission is that there is nothing on record of the Labour Court or before the learned Single Judge on which a finding could be recorded that the workman had filed reply in which it was already stated that the workman was employed under relief operation work. He submits that the findings recorded in para 9 of the judgement impugned are not in accordance with the records, therefore, the same deserve to be set aside and the Special Civil Application by the other side deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) Mr.Hathi, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the findings recorded in para 9 are to be seen in their proper context. According to him the appellant was appointed in relief operation work, but for the reasons best known to him he did not bring on record the orders of appointment. His submission is that the present respondent/ original writ petitioner had brought on record number of documents and after going through the records and the documents the learned Single Judge recorded a finding that the employee was appointed in relief operation work. His further submission is that the findings recorded in para 9 are not to be read de hors the other paras of the judgement but the findings are to be read as a result of the discussion as contained in the earlier paras of the judgement.