KANUBHAI DADABHAI GADHVI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, and is directed against the order dtd. 9/8/2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition. The said writ petition was filed by the appellants challenging the award dtd. 8/7/2016 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.1210 of 2009.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. R. G. Dwivedi, appearing for the appellants, has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge, confirming the award of the Labour Court, is liable to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted that both - the learned Single Judge and the Labour Court have failed to properly appreciate the fact that the appellants - original workmen - were appointed on 3/8/1990 and on 23/7/1992 respectively and continued in service until 12/3/1997, therefore, it is presumed that the appellants had completed 240 days of continuous service. He has further submitted that there is a clear violation of Sec. 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (I.D.Act), inasmuch as juniors to the appellants were retained in service while the appellants' services were terminated. He has also referred to the appointment of one Shri Mavjibhai Popatbhai Solanki, and has submitted that the appellants are also entitled to the same treatment. Thus, it is urged that the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge as well as the award passed by the Labour Court, may be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that no interference is warranted in the present matter, as it is evident from the record that the appellants have failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish that they had completed 240 days of continuous service preceding their termination. She has further submitted that, in fact, no juniors were retained by the respondents, and there was no requirement to maintain a seniority list, since the appellants were not appointed on a regular basis. It is also submitted that, in the absence of any documentary evidence on record, the provisions of Sec. 25H of the I.D. Act, are not attracted in the present case.