The High Court held that the findings recorded by the Labour Court to the effect that the respondent had worked between 3rd October, 1987 and 31st March, 1989 were supported by sufficient evidence and material on record.
He claims to have served in that capacity till 31st March, 1989 when his services were terminated.
The Labour Court on that basis held the termination of the respondent from service to be illegal and directed reinstatement with 65 back wages.
The award to the extent it directed payment of 65 back wages was, therefore, held to be perverse by the learned Single Judge of the High Court which part was accordingly set aside and the writ petition partly allowed.
It was companytended that the solitary piece of evidence which the respondent had produced in support of his version was a Xerox companyy of a certificate allegedly issued by an officer of the appellant Corporation who was never summoned as a witness.
Apart from the said document and the self statement of the respondent there was numberother material to support the findings that the respondent had indeed worked for 240 days as alleged by him before his termination.
The High Court referred to the evidence adduced by the parties before the Labour Court and came to the companyclusion that the appellant Corporation had number been able to prove its assertion that the respondent had worked for 58 days only.
Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Single Judge the appellant Corporation filed Letters Patent Appeal No.878 of 2012 which, as numbericed earlier, was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court by its order dated 20th July, 2012.
The Labour Court in the process rejected the appellants case that the respondent had worked only for 58 days as Badli Conductor and was number, therefore, entitled to protection of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The Labour Court placed reliance upon a Xerox companyy 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 number entitled to the benefit of any retrenchment companypensation.
Having said so, the High Court opined that the award of back wages of 65 was number justified as the Labour Court had number given any companyent reasons while directing such back wages number had the Labour Court examined whether the respondent was gainfully employed during the intervening period.
Aggrieved by the award made by the Labour Court the appellant Corporation filed Special Civil Application No.11508 of 2002 which was heard and partly allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad by his order dated 24th April, 2012.
The Labour Court allowed the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective versions and eventually came to the companyclusion that the respondent had indeed worked as a Conductor with the appellant Corporation between 3rd October, 1987 and 31st March, 1989.
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 companyciliation but since the companyciliation proceedings also failed, Reference No.459 of 1990 was made to the Labour Commissioner at Bhavnagar for adjudication of the dispute between the parties.
S. THAKUR, J. Leave granted.
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.
The respondent, it appears, was employed as a Conductor in the Transport Department of the appellant Corporation on daily wage basis in October, 1987.
