BUDHABHAI BHALABHAI PARMAR & 4 v. BHAILALBHAI JIVABHAI PATEL SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HEIRS

CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 10/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 20.10.2004 passed by the labour Court, Anand in reference (LCN) No.56 of 1984. Initially, five persons, who were second party in SCA/20888/2006 JUDGMENT aforesaid reference No.56 of 1984 filed a common petition being Special Civil Application No.20887 of 2006, but subsequently 4 separate petitions (one page petitions) appears to have been filed, while treating the Special Civil Application No.20887 of 2006 filed by Mr. Shanabhai B. Parmar as the lead petition with stipulation that averments and contentions in Special Civil Application No.20887 of 2006 may be treated common for all other petitions as there is a common award. The petitioner claim that the petitioner was working as agriculture / farm labourer under the respondent, who according to the petitioner, owns about 50 vighas of land and is engaged in agricultural activities on the said land.

The petitioner claim that they were being engaged by the respondent as labourers to help him in the agricultural activities and one of them was operating tractor. The petitioner alleged that in the month of October, 1981, they were discontinued by the respondent without any notice or without following SCA/20888/2006 JUDGMENT any procedure prescribed by law. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondent, the original claimant raised industrial dispute, which culminated into reference (LCN) No.56 of 1984. Ms. Moksha Thakkar for Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate for petitioner, submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings, two out of five concerned persons namely, Ravjibhai Budhabhai Parmar and Budhabhai Bhalabhai Parmar died. After hearing the submissions of both the sides, the labour court passed the impugned award whereby, on all the issues, the labour court has recorded findings against the concerned person.

The first issue framed by the labour court was “whether there was any relationship of employer and employee between the concerned person and the respondent and whether the concerned person was working as an employees with the respondent”. The second issue was “whether the concerned workmen were entitled to claim reinstatement”. After examining the matter in detail, the labour court has recorded findings of fact that the concerned person failed to establish that they SCA/20888/2006 JUDGMENT were working as labourers (agriculture / farm labourers) on the field of the respondent and/or that they were engaged as employees by the respondent to work on the said field. After having come to such a conclusion, the labour court has decided the issue No.1 in negative. As regards issue No.2, the labour court has recorded finding of fact that the concerned person failed to prove that they can be said to be “workmen” within the meaning of the term defined under section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

On perusal of the order, it transpires that the labour court has recorded the findings after examining the material on record. The labour court has also recorded that the concerned person failed to produce any material or document or any witness also to corroborate their claims and allegations, and consequently, they failed to establish their assertions. Even during the hearing of this petition, the SCA/20888/2006 JUDGMENT learned advocate for the petitioner has failed to show any evidence – documentary or oral on the basis of which, it can be said that the labour court has committed any error in arriving at the conclusions recorded in the award. As such, in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, this court would not enter into the exercise of reappreciating the evidence. In fact, there is no material or document available on record which needs to be or which can be examined so as to evaluate the findings of fact recorded by the labour court or to arrive at a conclusion that the findings of the labour court are baseless or against the weight of evidence or perverse.

Further, the petitioner has not even attempted to show anything during the hearing of this petition also, in light of which it can be concluded that the labour court has erred in arriving the conclusion. Thus, it cannot be said that there is any manifest error committed by the labour court in arriving at the conclusion or in recording any of the findings. There is no error of jurisdiction or law in the impugned award. The petitioner has failed to show any cogent material which would warrant exercise of jurisdiction by this court. SCA/20888/2006 JUDGMENT In view of the above, no case for interference is made out. Hence, present petition rejected. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs. [K.M.Thaker, J.]