The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a workman challenging a Labour Court award. The Court upheld the Labour Court's decision rejecting the claim for non-compliance with the Industrial Disputes Act due to insufficient documentary evidence proving 240 days of service.
Petition dismissed; Rule discharged; No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C/SCA/7190/2010 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7190 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: Sd/-
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER
================================================================
| 1 | Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? |
No |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | To be referred to the Reporter or not ? | No |
| 3 | Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? |
No |
| 4 | Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? |
No |
================================================================ BHUPATSINH HARISINGHBHAI VIRSODIYA
Versus COMMISSIONER & 1 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
VYOM H SHAH(9387) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR KV GADHIA(319) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED BY DS(65) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER
Date : 27/01/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 5
C/SCA/7190/2010 JUDGMENT
No.289/1994, whereby the claim of the petitioner – workman regarding breach of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter be referred to as the “I.D. Act.”) has been rejected.
Page 2 of 5
C/SCA/7190/2010 JUDGMENT
vehemently submitted that the workman was initially appointed as a watchman from 01.06.1992 till 03.06.1993 and, thereafter, he was appointed on compassionate ground as his father was died and the petitioner was posted on the post of clerk from 03.02.1993 till 30.06.1993. He has also submitted that had the Labour Court taken into consideration the services of the petitioner as a watchman from 01.6.1992 till 03.02.1993, the workman has served more than 240 days. He has submitted that the Labour Court has already observed in the award that the workman has completed 240 days during February 1992 till the end of June 1993. He has submitted that the petitioner has already produced the documentary evidence which consists of application for continuation of service filed before the concerned authority as well as presences sheet. He has submitted that this material document has not been considered by the Labour Court and erroneously rejected the claim of the petitioner. He has prayed to allow the present petition and appropriate relief may be granted to the workman.
Page 3 of 5
C/SCA/7190/2010 JUDGMENT
record, it appears that the workman has filed statement of claim wherein he has stated that he was working as a watchman on daily basis from 01.06.1992 and, thereafter, he was appointed as an administrator in Smt.Manuben Dhebarbhai, Sanatorium, Rajkot. He has also stated in his statement of claim that his service came to be terminated on 30.01.1993 without issuing any notice or paying any notice pay. He has also stated in his statement of claim that there is a breach of the provisions of the I.D. Act and in that view of the matter, he may be granted relief as claimed in the memo of petition.
Page 4 of 5
C/SCA/7190/2010 JUDGMENT
Sd/(DR. A. P. THAKER, J)
V.R. PANCHAL
Page 5 of 5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Labour Court award rejecting the claim regarding breach of Section 25(G) and (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Whether the refusal to grant relief due to lack of documentary evidence regarding service duration renders the Labour Court award perverse.
Whether the petitioner completed the requisite 240 days of service to trigger protections under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
catena of decisionsReferred¶9
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Bhupatsinh Harisinghbhai Virsodiya
Commissioner
A. P. Thaker
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
