Gujarat High Court High Court

Amin vs Jayeshbhai on 30 August, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Amin vs Jayeshbhai on 30 August, 2011
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/5088/2011	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5088 of 2011
 

With


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8384 of 2011
 

 
=========================================================

 

AMIN
AUTO ENTERPRISE - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

JAYESHBHAI
PARSHOTTAMBHAI BHATIYA - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
MANISH S SHAH for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MRS SHILPA R SHAH for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 30/08/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

Learned
Advocate Mr.Manish S.Shah for the petitioner and learned Advocate
Mrs.Shilpa R.Shah for the respondent, after arguing the matter, have
left the matter to this Court for awarding an additional amount over
and above the amount awarded by the learned Judge, Labour Court,
Himmatnagar, in Reference (LCH) No.92 of 2003. The learned Judge has
awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) as lump sum
compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

2. Learned
Advocate for the petitioner states that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lac) is already paid to the respondent-workman on
06.07.2011. The learned Advocate for the respondent-workman
submitted that an additional amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty
Thousand Only) towards arrears of back wages is required to be paid.

2.1 Learned
Advocate for the petitioner, on instructions from Shri Bhaveshbhai
Patel, Partner of the petitioner firm, states that according to the
petitioner, if at all any amount is to be paid, it could be anything
between Rs.22,000/- to Rs.25,000/- and that will meet the ends of
justice.

3. As
against that, learned Advocate for the respondent-workman submitted
that if at all the respondent-workman has to waive something then
also, the amount cannot be less than Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand Only).

4. Taking
into consideration the Diary produced by the learned Advocate for the
respondent-workman for perusal and the documentary evidence made
available for perusal by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the
question falls within the ambit of ‘disputed facts’. But, as both
the parties have left the matter to the Court, the Court is of the
opinion that it will be in fitness of things if the petitioner is
asked to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) in
full and final settlement and the respondent-workman will have no
further claim against the petitioner. This amount of Rs.40,000/-
(Rupees Forty Thousand Only) will also include cost of Rs.1,000/-
(Rupees One Thousand Only).

Order
accordingly.

5. The
petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Notice is
discharged. No costs.

The
amount shall be paid as early as possible, preferably by 15.09.2011.

Learned
Advocate for the respondent-workman states that the Recovery
Application will not be pressed further by the respondent-workman and
the same will be withdrawn.

(Ravi
R.Tripathi, J.)

*Shitole

   

Top