JASODABEN RAMANBHAI PARMAR Vs. SWAMI TEWRAN CHARITABLE TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned award dated 12.01.2007 passed by the Labour Court No.8, Ahmedabad in Reference (L.C.A.) No.771/1998, whereby the Labour Court has rejected the reference of the petitioner.

(2.) According to the petitioner, she was permanent employee of the respondent - Trust and her services were arbitrarily and abruptly terminated and, therefore, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was registered as reference as referred to hereinabove. According to her, the said reference came to be rejected by the Labour Court on the ground that the petitioner has not been able to establish that she has worked for 240 days. It is the contention of the petitioner that in the said reference, she has filed statement of claim vide Exhibit 5 on 30.09.1998 and the written statement was filed by the respondent on 14.09.2001. It is also the contended by the petitioner that thereafter, her evidence was recorded vide Exhibit 12 and she was subjected to cross-examination. It is further contended by the petitioner that she has also examined the co-worker vide Exhibit 20. The respondent has not examined any witness nor has produced any documentary evidence except filing of the written statement.

(3.) An affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent wherein it has supported the reasoning and ultimate conclusion of the Labour Court rejecting the reference of the petitioner. It is stated therein that there is no error of facts and law in rejecting the reference as the petitioner has failed to prove that she has ever worked for 240 days in a year. It is further stated that petitioner has not proved that she was regular employee of the respondent. It is also stated that the petitioner did not produce any evidence to substantiate her case. It is stated that the petitioner was not in full time employee. It is also stated that non-production of the evidence on behalf of the respondent does not mean that the petitioner shall need not to prove her case. It is stated that the petitioner used to come in the morning for one to one and half hours for doing miscellaneous work on certain days and, therefore, she should not become the employee of the respondent.