Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/22014/2007 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 22014 of 2007
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================
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 ?
=========================================
MEGA
AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. - Petitioner(s)
Versus
KANTILAL
B PATEL C/O.BARODA LABOUR UNION, 407 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
HASMUKH THAKKER for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MR PALAK H THAKKAR for Petitioner(s) : 1,
RULE
SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR TR MISHRA for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 12/07/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. The
petitioner has challenged the judgement and award dated 11th
January 2007 passed by the Labour Court No.2, Bharuch in Reference
(LCB) No.42 of 2000 whereby the petitioner was directed to reinstate
the respondent on his original post with continuity of service and
with 50% back wages along with costs of Rs.701/-.
2. According
to the respondent workman, he was working as work-shop incharge with
the petitioner from 17.9.1998 on a monthly salary of Rs.8500/- and he
had to do various jobs also. It was alleged that the petitioner
terminated his services from 1.3.1999 without any notice, notice pay
or payment of retrench compensation. He therefore raised an
industrial dispute which culminated into Reference (LCB) No.42/2000
and the Labour Court passed the judgement and award as stated
hereinabove.
3. Learned
Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent
workman has already been reinstated in service and he has also
attained the age of superannuation. Therefore the main question is
with regard to the back wages.
4. It
is required to be noted that in the application filed on 25th
February 2004 the petitioner has offered the respondent to reinstate
him on service. However, this offer was rejected by the workman. This
shows that the respondent workman was not interested in getting the
job, but he was interested only in back wages. In such circumstances,
I am of the view that grant of back wages was not justified on the
part of the Labour Court. In any case, it is by now well settled law
that when a person has not worked on the post, usually back wages
should not be granted.
5. In
the premises aforesaid, the judgement and order of the Labour Court
qua back wages is quashed and set aside. The rest of the award is
confirmed. The retirement dues pursuant to this order will be paid to
to the workman within a period of six weeks, if not paid so far. Rule
is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
ar
Top