Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4320/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4320 of 2011
=====================================
ISHWARBHAI
TEJABHAI DESAI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DY.
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER - Respondent(s)
=====================================
Appearance
:
MR YOGI K GADHIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent(s) :
1,
=====================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 29/08/2011
ORAL ORDER
1.0 Heard
learned advocate Mr. Yogi K. Gadhia for the petitioner. The learned
advocate for the petitioner submitted that the learned Judge of the
Labour Court has committed an error in not awarding reinstatement,
though, the learned Judge has believed that there is breach of the
provisions of labour laws. In the alternative, he submitted that the
learned Judge has erred in awarding too a meagre an amount as lump
sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement. By award and order dated
5th January 2010, the learned Judge of the Labour Court,
Mahesana in Reference No. 17 of 2008 (Old No. 217 of 1994) has
awarded only Rs.10,000/- as lump sum compensation.
2.0 The
matter requires consideration. Hence, Rule. Learned advocate
Mr. HS Munshaw for the respondent waives service of Rule.
2.1 On
a request made by learned advocate for the petitioner, the matter is
taken up for final hearing, to which, the learned advocate for the
respondent has no objection.
3.0 As
the matter is restricted to quantum of lump sum compensation, taking
into consideration the fact that the petitioner – workman had
worked for about two years, as the learned Judge of the Labour Court
has believed that, which is not admitted by the learned advocate for
the respondent and taking into consideration the length of service
and the fact that the petitioner – workman is not awarded
reinstatement, the amount of lump sum compensation is enhanced to
Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand only).
3.1 With
this direction, the petition is partly allowed. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
3.2 At
the request of learned advocate for the petitioner, the respondent is
directed to pay this amount as early as possible but not later than
30th September 2011.
3.3 Liberty
is reserved in favour of the petitioner in case of difficulty.
[
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. ]
hiren
Top