JAGDISHCHANDRA HARSHADBHAI DAVE Vs. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 26/8/2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned Writ Petition, wherein and whereby the learned Single Judge is pleased to reject the Writ Petition challenging the order dtd. 19/12/2008 passed by the Labour Court, Surendranagar rejecting the reference proceedings under Reference (LCS) No.116 of 1996.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Pandya has submitted that the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be quashed and set aside since the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that there was violation of the provisions of Ss. 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") while terminating the services of the appellant-workman. While placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 3 SCC 192, it is submitted that in order to prove the violation of the provisions of Sec. 25G of the Act, which envisages 'first come last go', it is not required for the workman to prove that he worked for 240 days.

(3.) While placing reliance on Rule 82 of the Industrial Dispute [Gujarat] Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") , it is submitted that the respondents are supposed to inform the retrenched workman before appointing any other daily-wagers. He has pointed out the document at Exh.36 dtd. 29/1/1996 which shows that six daily-wagers are appointed after holding the interview. It is submitted that as per the provisions of Rule 84 of the Rules, since the respondents have not issued any show cause notice or informed the appellant, the termination can be said to be illegal. He has also referred to the definition of "retrenchment" as provided under Sec. 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya has also referred to the crossexamination of the respondents produced at Exh.25 in reference proceedings, in which, it is admitted that after termination of the appellant, he was not given any work and he was not also informed to resume the duties before appointing six daily-wagers. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and the order passed by the Labour Court dtd. 19/12/2008 rejecting the reference proceedings may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to reinstate the appellant in service.