LALJIBHAI AMBALAL RAWAL Vs. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-workman in Reference (LCN) No. 132 of 1990 has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 277 of the Constitution of India, challenging the common award and order passed by the learned Labour Court, Nadiad on 08/02/2008 in Reference (LCN) No. 132 of 1990, Reference (LCN) No. 133 of 1990 and Reference (LCN) No. 134 of 1990 on the ground that the Labour Court has patently erred in appreciating the material on record and therefore the said order and award so far as the present petitioner is concerned who was party in Reference (LCN) No. 132 of 1990 requires to be quashed and set aside.

(2.) THE facts in brief deserves to be set out as under leading to the filing of this petition.

(3.) IT was the case of the concerned workman that he was serving with the respondent as daily wager since last three years and he was earning wages to the tune of Rs. 510/- per month. Except Sunday, all the days on which he was required to work was paid. He was terminated on 13/10/1987. This was the say of the workman so far as the statement of claim is concerned. But the Labour Court has recorded in its findings that though this version is given up in the oral testimony and the different version is given as narrated by the Court. The Court has recorded that except the oral testimony of the workman which is also not in consistence with the statement of claim cannot be said to be an evidence as to his claim for violation of Section 25 (F) of the ID Act and based thereon requirement for reinstatement. The Labour Court has recored its finding that the testimony of the workman was not in consistence that what he has stated and laid down in statement of claim. That apart, there was finding with regard to glaring discrepancy in respect of the date of testimony itself. Be that as it may, suffice it to observe that the Labour Court has recorded that there was sufficient documentary evidence available from the respondent side indicating that the workman did not complete 240 days so as to invoke provisions of Section 25 (F) of the ID Act for claiming retrenchment compensation and on failure thereof seeking reinstatement. In view of the aforesaid clear finding of the Labour Court with regard to workman's failure in establishing his case for invoking Section 25 (F) of the ID Act, submission of Shri Rathod deserves to be examined.