TUKIYA BHAI LAKSHUBHAI Vs. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave appearing on behalf of petitioners.

(2.) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Dave submitted that Labour Court has committed gross error in not considering the evidence of the workmen and their witnesses those who were before the Labour Court. Learned Advocate Mr. Dave also submitted that Section 25F has been violated by the respondent, but, that fact has not been appreciated by the Labour Court. He further submitted that workmen remained in service for more than 10 to 12 years, then, it is necessary for the workmen to prove 240 days continuous service as required under Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He relied upon the decision of the Court reported in : 2006 (1) GLR 695. He also submitted that evidence of witness of respondent is not properly appreciated because the State Government has issued project one -by -one for giving employment to the poor employees in a scheme, and in that occasion, when another scheme was going on, the respondent has not called the petitioners as required under Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, he submitted that Labour Court has committed gross error in rejecting the Reference. He also submitted that at present also the work is going on, even though, respondent is not calling the petitioners to report for work. He further submitted that the award passed by the Labour Court it contrary to the settled law and therefore, the same is required to be set aside. Except that, no other submissions are made by learned Advocate Mr. Dave and no decision is relied upon by him. I,

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, date of termination is 23rd July 1988, but, looking to the, inspection report Exh. 43, where, some of the petitioners were in service, upto November 1988 therefore. Labour Court has come to the conclusion that if, the date of termination given by the petitioner dated, 23rd July, 1988 is found to be incorrect which is contrary to the inspection report produced by both the parties vide Exh. 43, therefore, workman was not sure that on which date, he was appointed and on which date, his service was terminated. This categorical statement was made by the workmen in his cross -examination. That facts have been observed by the Labour Court in its discussion. The Labour Court has also considered that in statement of claim, petitioners have not given the date of termination and even in documents also, the date of termination is not clear or proved by the petitioners. Therefore, after remanding the matters back by this Court to the Labour Court, Labour Court has considered the presence register produced by the petitioners and also considered the original register vide Exh. 67 which is relating to year 1987 -88 and according to the original documents for a period of 1987 -88 Exh. 67, if it is considered, then, workmen have not proved 240 days continuous service within a period of 12 months preceding from the date of termination. So, on both the counts, petitioners failed to prove continuous service of 240 days before the Labour Court and none of the petitioners has proved the fact that on which date, his appointment was made and, on which date, his service was terminated. The evidence of the workmen was that whatever it is, they were required to work, and accordingly, presence was marked and salary was received. Therefore, petitioners shall have to prove from original register or by any other evidence that they remained in service continuous for 240 days in a 12 months period.