BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ETC Vs. JADEJA GOVUBHA CHHANUBHA
LAWS(SC)-2014-12-4
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: GUJARAT)
Decided on
December 03,2014
Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation Etc
Appellant
VERSUS
Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
RANGE FOREST OFFICER VS. S T HADIMANI [REFERRED TO]MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FARIDABAD VS. SIRI NIWAS [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN STATE GANGANAGAR S MILLS LIMITED VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
M P ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. HARIRAM [REFERRED TO]
MANAGER R B I BANGLORE VS. S MANI [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT PANCHAYAT VS. JETHABHAI PITAMBERBHAI [REFERRED TO]
R M YELLATTI VS. ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER [REFERRED TO]
MAHBOOB DEEPAK VS. NAGAR PANCHYAT GAJRAULA [REFERRED TO]
GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. ASHOK KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
SITA RAM VS. MOTI LAL NEHRU FARMERS TRAINING INSTITUTE [REFERRED TO]
JAGBIR SINGH VS. HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD [REFERRED TO]
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT TELEGRAPH TRAFFIC BHOPAL VS. SANTOSH KUMAR SEAL [REFERRED TO]
INCHARGE OFFICER VS. SHANKAR SHETTY [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
DIVISIONAL MANAGER F.D.C.M. WEST CHANDA PROJECT DIVISION VS. NILKANTH S/O MOTIRAM NANNAWARE [LAWS(BOM)-2020-1-74] [REFERRED TO]BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. HARESHBHAI J. JANI [LAWS(GJH)-2018-1-531] [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF INDIA VS. HARISH CHANDER SAH [LAWS(DLH)-2015-10-79] [REFERRED TO]
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER VS. NAVAB SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2019-2-251] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF TAMIL NADU VS. LABOUR OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2022-7-170] [REFERRED TO]
YOGESH VALLABHDAS KELAIYA VS. JETPUR NAVAGADH MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(GJH)-2019-9-128] [REFERRED TO]
VASKAR ROY VS. THE SYNDICATE BANK & OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2016-8-63] [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED VS. SAHAL RAM [LAWS(CHH)-2015-11-51] [REFERRED]
BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. SHANTILAL POPATLAL PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2022-5-260] [REFERRED TO]
N.T.P.C LTD VS. SURAJ PAL SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2023-10-25] [REFERRED TO]
TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS VS. K. VIJAYA [LAWS(APH)-2022-8-100] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GWALIOR VS. SURENDRA SINGH YADAV [LAWS(MPH)-2019-4-129] [REFERRED TO]
U.P.S.R.T.C. VS. SATISH CHANDRA [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-156] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL BOARD VS. HAUSLA PRASAD [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-7-52] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL SHARMA VS. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2023-8-150] [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. GOVINDBHAI NARANBHAI PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2022-5-76] [REFERRED TO]
NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-8-47] [REFERRED]
SOMERVELI MEMORIAL C.S.I. MEDICAL COLLEGE KARAKONAM VS. LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM CIVIL STATION [LAWS(KER)-2021-10-94] [REFERRED TO]
NARESHBHAI RAVJIBHAI CHAUHAN VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR - STATE BANK OF SAURASHTRA [LAWS(GJH)-2018-12-97] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. HINDUSTAN VEGETABLE OIL CO. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-7-118] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH CHANDER VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2019-5-188] [REFERRED TO]
RIAZ ABDUL SATTAR KHATRI VS. DHORAJI NAGAR PALIKA [LAWS(GJH)-2022-4-49] [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH KAHAR VS. P.O., LABOUR COURT KANPUR [LAWS(ALL)-2018-11-249] [REFERRED TO]
JUNAGADH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. BHAVESH LAXMAN RATHOD [LAWS(GJH)-2020-9-768] [REFERRED TO]
JAYESHGIRI NATWARGIRI GOSWAMI VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA (SBI) & ANR. [LAWS(GJH)-2017-9-93] [REFERRED TO]
PORT OFFICER VS. RAGHUBHAI GOVINDBHAI C/O NAYANBHAI K JOSHI [LAWS(GJH)-2018-1-419] [REFERRED TO]
AYODHAYA VS. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF [LAWS(CHH)-2018-1-17] [REFERRED TO]
BABUBHAI SHANKARBHAI LADHER VS. DY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & 1 [LAWS(GJH)-2018-2-106] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER VS. MOHD MUSTAFA [LAWS(ALL)-2018-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P THRU EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-10-25] [REFERRED]
AMAR SINGH VS. SATYA PRAKASH & ANR [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-10-170] [REFERRED]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-208] [REFERRED TO]
YOGESH VALLABHDAS KELAIYA VS. JETPUR NAVAGADH MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(BOM)-2019-9-153] [REFERRED TO]
BAL KRISHAN SHARMA VS. PUNJAB & SINDH BANK AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2016-11-82] [REFERRED TO]
DR. SOMERVELI MEMORIAL C.S.I. MEDICAL COLLEGE VS. LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM [LAWS(KER)-2021-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHBHAI JESANGBHAI SOLANKI VS. MEDICAL OFFICER [LAWS(GJH)-2016-4-253] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. LAXMANBHAI NATHABHAI MACHAR [LAWS(GJH)-2022-12-1130] [REFERRED TO]
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF CAPTIVE POWER PLANT OF M/S. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED AT KATHARA, P.O. KATHARA, DISTRICT VS. THEIR WORKMEN BEING REPRESENTED BY SHRI KESHAV SINGH YADAV, AREA SECRETARY, BIHAR COLLIERY KAMGAR UNION, KATHARA, P.O. KATHARA, DISTRICT BOKARO [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-9-102] [REFERRED TO]
DISTRICT SPORTS OFFICER VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-10-26] [REFERRED]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GWALIOR VS. SURENDRA SINGH YADAV [LAWS(MPH)-2019-2-56] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND VS. SURESHWATI [LAWS(SC)-2021-1-39] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)These appeals arise out of a judgement and order dated 20th July, 2012 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad whereby Letters Patent Appeal No.878 of 2012 filed by the appellant-Corporation has been dismissed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge of that Court partly modifying the award made in favour of the respondent affirmed.
(3.)The respondent, it appears, was employed as a Conductor in the Transport Department of the appellant-Corporation on daily-wage basis in October, 1987. He claims to have served in that capacity till 31st March, 1989 when his services were terminated. Aggrieved by the termination, the respondent raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bhavnagar who tried to resolve the same by way of conciliation but since the conciliation proceedings also failed, Reference No.459 of 1990 was made to the Labour Commissioner at Bhavnagar for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The Labour Court allowed the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective versions and eventually came to the conclusion that the respondent had indeed worked as a Conductor with the appellant-Corporation between 3rd October, 1987 and 31st March, 1989. The Labour Court in the process rejected the appellant's case that the respondent had worked only for 58 days as Badli Conductor and was not, therefore, entitled to protection of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court placed reliance upon a Xerox copy of a certificate allegedly issued by an officer of the appellant-Corporation certifying that the respondent had worked as a Conductor for the period mentioned above. The Labour Court drew an adverse inference against the appellant-Corporation for its omission to produce relevant record to prove that the respondent-workman had worked only for 58 days hence not entitled to the benefit of any retrenchment compensation. The Labour Court on that basis held the termination of the respondent from service to be illegal and directed reinstatement with 65% back wages.
(2.)These appeals arise out of a judgement and order dated 20th July, 2012 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad whereby Letters Patent Appeal No.878 of 2012 filed by the appellant-Corporation has been dismissed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge of that Court partly modifying the award made in favour of the respondent affirmed.
(3.)The respondent, it appears, was employed as a Conductor in the Transport Department of the appellant-Corporation on daily-wage basis in October, 1987. He claims to have served in that capacity till 31st March, 1989 when his services were terminated. Aggrieved by the termination, the respondent raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bhavnagar who tried to resolve the same by way of conciliation but since the conciliation proceedings also failed, Reference No.459 of 1990 was made to the Labour Commissioner at Bhavnagar for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The Labour Court allowed the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective versions and eventually came to the conclusion that the respondent had indeed worked as a Conductor with the appellant-Corporation between 3rd October, 1987 and 31st March, 1989. The Labour Court in the process rejected the appellant's case that the respondent had worked only for 58 days as Badli Conductor and was not, therefore, entitled to protection of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court placed reliance upon a Xerox copy of a certificate allegedly issued by an officer of the appellant-Corporation certifying that the respondent had worked as a Conductor for the period mentioned above. The Labour Court drew an adverse inference against the appellant-Corporation for its omission to produce relevant record to prove that the respondent-workman had worked only for 58 days hence not entitled to the benefit of any retrenchment compensation. The Labour Court on that basis held the termination of the respondent from service to be illegal and directed reinstatement with 65% back wages.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.