STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. AMARSINH RANCHHODBHAI PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant State has called into question common oral order of learned single Judge which is based on failure of the appellants themselves in defending their cases before the Labour Court. It is a typical and in no way unique pinnacle of a senseless spiral of litigation where public money is wasted at the cost of public time of the Court by multiplying litigations without any legal point and making a grievance out of utter neglect or collusion at the stage of trial.

(2.) Simple facts of the cases are that, five workmen approached the Labour Court in 1990 with the dispute and demand for reinstatement with back wages on the basis that their services were illegally terminated in the year 1988/1989 by forest officer concerned after nearly four years of continuous service. The appellant herein took up the defence that the workmen concerned had not completed 240 days of continuous service in any year and that they had left the service on their own; but did not lead any evidence whatsoever. Three workmen, respondents herein, were examined and cross -examined in evidence and had also applied for and obtained an order for production of documents by the appellant. The appellant did not comply with the order to produce the documentary evidence and, in absence of any evidence in defence, the Labour Court found that continuous service was proved and mandatory provisions of section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not complied in terminating the services and ordered reinstatement with 15% back wages on account of prolonged pendency of the references before it. Even as that common award was made on 10.03.2006, after pendency for 16 years, the appellant herein preferred writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution which came to be summarily dismissed by the impugned order dated 02.12.2006. Almost two years thereafter and after condonation of delay of 185 days in filing appeals, the present appeals with applications for staying the impugned order (!!) have come up for admission hearing without any substantial ground and apparently for finishing the formality of carrying litigation upto the highest level in the State.

(3.) It is against the above dismal backdrop of facts that this Court was called upon to admit the appeals on one or the other flimsy ground, awaiting some new developments in law so that litigation survives practically beyond the working life of the respondents who entered the service of the appellants nearly 25 years ago. It was argued and then placed on record in the form of elaborate written submissions that the Labour Court ought not to have granted the relief of reinstatement with back wages only because it was lawful to do so and it ought to have taken into consideration several other factors, for which no factual foundation was ever laid. Judgment of the Apex Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Om Pal [(2007) 5 SCC 742] was relied upon in support of the above submissions and following observations, as quoted in Chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam v. Sham Lal [AIR 2006 SC 2682], were emphasized: