SCA/831520/2008 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8315 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================= CHARAN BHARATKUMAR TAKHATSINH - Petitioner Versus THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & 1 - Respondents ================================================= Appearance : MR RAJESH P MANKAD for Petitioner : MR KRUNAL D. PANDYA, LD. AGP for Respondents : 1 - 2. ================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 23/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. RU LE. Shri KD Pandya, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for respondents. With the consent of the parties rule is fixed forthwith. 2. The petitioner-workman has preferred this petition assailing the order of the Labour Court, Ahmedabad, dated 4/1/2008 rejecting Reference (LCA) No. 1258 of 2005. The workman SCA/831520/2008 2/3 JUDGMENT had to raise an industrial dispute as his services were terminated orally on 30/6/2001. The Competent Authority therefore recorded failure in conciliation and referred the matter for adjudication to the competent court wherein the same came to be registered as Reference (LCA) No.1258 of 2005. The workman filed statement of claim and the opponents also filed their written statement raising various issues. The Labour Court has framed very general issue and after recording the rival contentions decided that the reference deserves to be rejected and accordingly rejected on 4/1/2008. The same is impugned in this petition. 3. Shri Mankad for the workman contended that the Labour Court has not decided the matter keeping in view the various contentions raised by both the parties, thereby a specific finding on each of the contention. Therefore the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded to the Labour Court for an appropriate adjudication in light of the evidence adduced or that may be adduced here after. Learned AGP Mr. Pandya could not controvert or resist the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner as it could be seen from the award that the main issues have not even been framed much less decided by the Court. 4. This Court has heard counsels of the parties and perused the order impugned. Rival contentions have not been tested or scrutinized by the Labour Court as it is required under the law. The very framing of the issue go to show that the real issues have not been addressed to by the Labour Court. No findings are recorded on the rival pleadings of the parties and therefore, suffice it to say that the Labour Court has committed an error calling for interference from this Court SCA/831520/2008 3/3 JUDGMENT under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The order impugned therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded to the Labour Court for hearing it afresh. As the matter is being remanded, it is clarified that this Court has not observed anything on merits of the matter and it shall be open to both the sides to adduce additional evidence in support of their rival claim and contentions and the Labour Court shall take them into consideration and frame appropriate issues and record its findings on each of the issues. With this direction, this petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [ S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ] /vgn