DY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. VANKAR ARKHIBEN NATHABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Manish J. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner; none for the respondents though name of Shri Shahsikant S. Gade is shown in the daily board.

(2.) Learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad had passed a common award in relation to five workmen and had finally decided References No. 241, 252, 254, 255 and 257, all of 1987. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said different awards has filed one common petition. It is not a case where five persons had jointly filed a dispute and the dispute was finally decided by one common award giving cause to the party who had chosen to file one common petition. When five disputes were filed, same were required to be challenged by five different petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he be given some time to file separate petitions. I do not think that after lapse of 13 years, such liberty should be given to the petitioner. On being asked that which of the respondents would be selected by the petitioner to proceed with the petition, Shri Patel submitted that he would proceed with the case of respondent no.1.

(3.) It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Court below was unjustified in holding that the workmen had worked for more than 240 days despite there being documentary evidence available on the records to show that the workmen could not complete 240 working days in 12 calendar months preceding the date of the illegal retrenchment.