LAWS(GJH)-2006-9-18

GEB Vs. MAGANBHAI CHHAGANBHAI PATEL

Decided On September 07, 2006
GEB Appellant
V/S
MAGANBHAI CHHAGANBHAI PATEL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Advocate, Mr. A.D. Oza, on behalf of petitioners and learned Advocate, Mr. M.K. Patel, appearing on behalf of respondent in one group. In Rest of the matters, this Court has not issued any notice.

(2.) In SCA No. 19145/2006, the petitioners have challenged the award passed by Labour Court, Valsad in Reference No. 848/1990 dated 21.1.2006, whereby, the Labour Court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 20 % back wages of interim period. In SCA No. 19146/2006, the petitioners have challenged the award passed by Labour Court, Valsad in Reference No. 849/1990 dated 23.1.2006, whereby, the Labour Court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 20 % back wages of interim period. In SCA No. 17971 to 17986 of 2006, the petitioners have challenged the award passed by Labour Court, Valsad in Reference No. 832/1990, 839/1990, 824/1990, 844/1990, 847/1990, 833/1990, 834/1990, 835/1990, 843/1990, 836/1990, 837/1990, 842/1990, 840/1990, 841/1990 and 845/1990 dated 14.12.2005, whereby, the Labour Court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 20 % back wages of interim period. In SCA No. 10306 to 10319 of 2006, the petitioners have challenged the award passed by Labour Court, Valsad in Reference No. 816/1990 dated 27.10.2005, whereby, the Labour Court has granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 20 % back wages of interim period.

(3.) Learned Advocate, Mr. M.K. Patel, appearing on behalf of respondent, supported the award passed by Labour Court, Valsad in respect to one group of the petitions. He submitted that these are the finding of fact and appreciation of facts by the Labour Court, therefore, this Court cannot disturb such finding which is based on factual aspect considering evidence on record while exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that Labour Court has rightly dealt with the matter and has considered that workmen remained in continuous service from date of engagement till the date of their termination. In between, there is no termination by the petitioners of the workmen. Meaning thereby that workmen concerned remained in service for more than 1 years' period with the petitioners and in between no termination by the petitioners of the workmen, then workmen is entitled the benefit of Section 25F of the Act. However, he submitted that each workman has given deposition before the Labour Court that they remained in service for more than 1 year, completed 240 days by discharging the onus upon the workmen to prove 240 days continuous service, then, the burden is shifted upon the employer to disprove these facts by positive evidence which has not been proved by petitioners, therefore, the Labour Court has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and not committed any error which requires any interference by this Court.