Dismissed

The Commissioner, Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Dhirajlal Kanjibhai

Gujarat HC20 Jun 2019LPA/1251/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against an oral order confirming a Labour Court award. The Labour Court had reinstated a workman and ordered backwages, rejecting the employer's argument that compensation was appropriate because the Octroi Department was closed and the workman was a daily wager.

What did the court decide?

Letters Patent Appeal dismissed; Civil Application for stay disposed of; Clarification on reinstatement confirmed.

The Commissioner, Rajkot Municipal… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶1

C/LPA/1251/2019 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1251 of 2019

¶4

In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3045 of 2019

¶5

With

¶6

CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1251 of 2019

¶7

==========================================================

¶8

THE COMMISSIONER, RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Versus DHIRAJLAL KANJIBHAI

¶9

==========================================================

¶10

Appearance: MR KV GADHIA(319) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR.MANAN BHATT(6535) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶11

==========================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

¶13

Date : 20/06/2019

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV)

¶16

By oral order dated 18.6.2019 passed in R/Letters Patent Appeal No.1245 of 2019 in R/Special Civil Application No.2815 of 2019 with Civil Application (For Stay) No.1 of 2019 in R/Letters Patent Appeal No.1245 of 2019, we have dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal. Said order reads as under:

¶17

“1 The appellant before us has challenged the oral order dated 25.02.2019 passed by the learned Single

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

C/LPA/1251/2019 ORDER

¶20

Judge by which the learned Single Judge confirmed the award dated 30.08.2018 passed by the Labour Court allowing the reference filed by the workman, however, without backwages.

¶21

2 The workman has filed statement of claim before the Labour Court inter alia stating that he worked as daily wager with appellant from June 2001 to 12.05.2004 and his services were terminated without following requisite procedure under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶22

3 The Labour Court appreciated the evidence, more particularly, the testimonies of the employee wherein he has categorically asserted the fact that he had worked for a period of 240 days and that he had been engaged for work other than Octroi Department and after he was relieved from service, his juniors were continued to perform the work and such evidence of the workman was not contested by the employer by leading evidence contrary to the evidence of the workman.

¶23

3.1 The Labour Court placed reliance on the document produced by the respondent vide mark 26/1 which shows the staff set up of the Corporation at 691 persons out of which 58 posts are vacant. It is also pointed out that application which was filed at Exh.9 by the workman requesting the employer to produce on record documents like Muster Roll and Salary Register to discharge the burden, the employer failed to produce any evidence on record in this regard.

¶24

4 Mr. Gadhia, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent – workman has worked as daily wager in Octroi Department, which was closed down, and therefore, rather than awarding reinstatement, lump sum compensation ought to have been awarded by the Labour Court or in alternative the relief ought to have been modified by the learned Single Judge by awarding compensation.

¶25

5 Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the award of the Labour Court and judgment of the learned Single Judge, following undisputed facts come on record:

¶26

[I] The respondent – employee had worked with the appellant – employer for a period of 3 years. It was his assertion that he worked more than 240 days, and therefore, he was entitled for protection of Section

¶27

Page 2 of 4

¶28

C/LPA/1251/2019 ORDER

¶29

25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶30

[ii] Application Exh.9 was filed before the Labour Court asking the employer to produce evidence which was in his custody to discharge the burden of proof and the employer failed to produce any record, and therefore, the Labour Court has rightly drawn adverse inference against the employer and held that the employee has completed 240 days.

¶31

[iii] About appreciation of statements made by the employee which was not refuted by the employer, it had come on record that the employee was engaged in work not only in Octroi Department, but was entrusted with other extra work in the other departments.

¶32

Therefore, the argument of Mr. Gadhia that the workman was working as daily wager in Octroi Department and since the Octroi Department was closed, the Labour Court ought not to have passed awards for reinstatement of the workman, is not justified.

¶33

[iv] It has also come on record that persons junior to the workman were retained and in fact fresh recruitment was made.

¶34

5.1 In the backdrop of the above findings of facts arrived by the Labour Court and so confirmed by the learned Single Judge, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In view of the above, this Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed.

¶35

6 Under the circumstances, we may hold that the clarification given by the learned Single Judge that the respondent – workman be reinstated in original post shall stand confirmed.

¶36

The oral order challenged in this appeal arises out of the very same judgment and hence, oral order dated 18.6.2019 passed in R/Letters Patent Appeal No.1245 of 2019 in R/Special Civil Application No.2815 of 2019 will govern the present Letters Patent Appeal. Hence, present Letters Patent

¶37

Page 3 of 4

¶38

C/LPA/1251/2019 ORDER

¶39

Appeal No.1251 of 2019 stands dismissed. Consequently, Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2019 also stands disposed of.

¶40

(ANANT S. DAVE, ACJ)

¶41

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)

¶42

RADHAKRISHNAN K.V.

¶43

Page 4 of 4

The Commissioner, Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Dhirajlal Kanjibhai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner, Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Dhirajlal Kanjibhai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijaybhai Muljibhai Kanani Vs Bhavin Pandya

New Auto Ancillary Private Limited Vs Sarvoday Commercial Co. Operative Bank Limited

New Auto Ancillary Private Limited Vs Sarvoday Commercial Co. Operative Bank Limited

State of Gujarat Vs Vikaram Khodabhai Chauhan

The Commissioner, Rajkot Municipal Corporation Vs Dhirajlal Kanjibhai

Rafik Rajak Mansuri Vs Jagdish Prasad Gupta