Jamnagar Municipal Corporation vs Bharat Chandulal Vaghela on 3 May, 2023
Bench: Honourable Justice Mauna M. Bhatt
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13 of 2019
Facts
In the instant case, the respondent applied for work as a daily wager in the Solid Waste Department of Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. His application was considered and he was appointed with the following conditions: – (i) Respondent will be taken on work as alternative arrangement because occasionally the regular workmen proceed on leave.
(ii) Respondent has to regularly remain present. The petitioner made thee appointment as alternative arrangements to meet with the health and hygiene of the citizens of the city of Jamnagar, keeping in mind that regular employees of solid waste department occasionally proceed on leave. However, as respondent herein was a habitual absentee, a warning letter was served upon him to be sincere about his duty otherwise the purpose of his appointment would get frustrated. Despite the warning, the respondent did not report for duty, hence a notice was issued calling upon him to show cause as to why his name should not be deleted from the list of workmen appointed pursuant to the order.
However, the respondent failed to reply and hence an order was passed to terminate his service.
After termination, the respondent addressed a letter requesting the petitioner to reinstate him. Against the action of the petitioner deleting his name from the list, he approached the Labour Court, Jamnagar. The Labour Court, Jamnagar directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent back into service with continuity but without backwages within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. Aggrieve by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
The petitioner’s advocate contended that the respondent plea in seeking reinstatement with continuity and full back wages is not maintainable as the same was filed beyond a period of 3 years. He also held that the labour court had ignored the warning issued to the respondent where the petitioner had sought an explanation for his absence. However, when the respondent didn’t reply, the petitioner terminated his services
Judgement
The Court after going through the facts learnt that that due opportunity of explanation was accorded and thereby principles of natural justice had been complied with by the petitioner. A show-cause notice was served upon the respondent calling for his explanation for remaining absent. It held that the Labour Court had erred in its finding that the report of absenteeism was subsequently prepared because on the basis of the record furnished by the petitioner, they had prepared the report on time. Thus, the Court quashed and set aside the order and vacated the Interim relief.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AMIT ARAVIND
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
