NARSINHBHAI LAXMANBHAI RATHOD Vs. GUJARAT VISHVAKOSH TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In present petition petitioner has placed under challenge award dated 22.12.2006 passed by the learned Labour Court at Ahmedabad in Reference (LCD) No.801 of 1993, whereby the learned Labour Court rejected the reference.

(2.) So far as factual aspect is concerned, it has emerged from the record and from rival submissions by the learned advocates for petitioner and respondent - Trust that present petitioner i.e. original claimant before the learned Labour Court raised industrial dispute with the allegation that he was employed by the opponent Trust as Proof Reader with effect from 16.01.1992. The opponent Trust illegally and arbitrarily terminated his service by oral order on 22.10.1992 and that though he worked continuously, regularly and for more than 240 days, the opponent Trust did not comply the procedure prescribed by law. He alleged that he worked with the opponent Trust from 16.01.1992 to 22.10.1992 (i.e. for 10 months) and during that period he had worked for 240 days and therefore, his service could not have been terminated without following procedure prescribed by Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. With such allegations and submissions the claimant demanded that he should be reinstated in service.

(3.) Mr. Mankad, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly restricted his submissions and claimed that the opponent Trust had opposed the petitioner's case with regard to date of appointment. He submitted that according to the claimant, he was employed with effect from 16.01.1992, whereas the Trust claimed that he was engaged in April 1992. Mr. Mankad, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that to support his claim that he had joined the opponent Trust in January 1992, the claimant had relied on letter dated 22.03.2006 given by Provident Fund Organization, wherein the Provident Fund Organization stated that the record of Organization showed that the person whose provident fund account number was "GJ 19640/2010" was member of Provident Fund Organization since 16.01.1992. Mr. Mankad, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly submitted that except the said document the claimant did not place and could not place any other material on record to support his claim that he had joined the opponent Trust in January 1992. He submitted that if the claimant's case that he joined the service of the opponent Trust in January 1992 is accepted, then, it would also establish that the claimant had worked for 240 days. He submitted that the claimant has crossed the age of superannuation before long time and therefore, all that the claimant now expects is appropriate and reasonable compensation.