SCA/6357/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6357 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 ? ========================================================= PARASHOTTAM ASHABHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s) Versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NARMADA YOJNA - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR AS ASTHAVADI for Petitioner(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, MR NIRZAR S DESAI for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 29/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Mr.Desai waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.1. Rule is fixed forthwith at the request of learned counsels for the parties. SCA/6357/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT 2. Petitioner-workman has preferred this petition under Art.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 3-9-2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Nadiad, rejecting his reference being Reference (LCA) No.59 of 2001 (Old No.63 of 1993) on various grounds mentioned thereunder. 3. Mr.A.S.Asthavadi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, contended that the Labour Court has recorded finding contrary to the evidence on record so far as completion of 240 days in the preceding year is concerned. He submitted that the document at exh.27 was document produced by the employer, respondent herein above,and even a glance at the document shows that the workman has completed 240 days in the preceding year. Copy of the said document is heavily relied upon by Mr.Asthavadi and he submitted that in view of this, let there be remand the matter to the learned Labour Court for recording its finding on this aspect. 4. Mr.Desai, learned advocate appearing for the respondent, candidly admitted that this is a document produced by the present respondent-employer before the Labour Court as it is mentioned on internal page No.4 of the award and on Page-9 and, therefore, the same is required to be taken into consideration. Mr.Desai, however, could not point out from this document as to how the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that 240 days are not completed. He submitted that the Labour Court has actually decided the matter against the petitioner on other grounds also. However, he submitted that the petitioner's engagement with other employer SCA/6357/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT after his termination, has not been rightly believed by the concerned Court. Mr. Desai for the respondent could not advance any other submission in support of the award impugned. 5. This Court has gone through the award. The matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Court only on the aspect of its finding with regard to non-completion of 240 days. It was not open for the Court to record its finding contrary to the document adduced by the employer which on the face of it, indicates that the workman did complete more than 240 days in the preceding year of his termination. Other issues are not commented upon as no such submissions are canvassed in those behalf. Suffice it to say that the matter deserves to be remanded back. The award impugned is quashed and set aside only on this aspect with a liberty to both the sides to adduce evidence available in support of their case in respect of all the issues. It would be open to both the parties to take up all the contentions including that of maintainability. The Labour Court shall decide the reference preferably within six months from the date of receipt of writ by this Court. 6. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) vijay* SCA/6357/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT