Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/14062/2010 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14062 of
2010
=========================================================
NERAL
PAPER MILLS PVT LTD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SHASHIKANT
CHAUHAN - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DJ BHATT for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR PC CHAUDHARI for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 01/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1.
Heard Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.
Chaudhary, learned advocate for the respondent.
2.
Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner company had not terminated services of the respondent and
in fact it is the respondent who, after having proceeded on leave
(which was duly granted by the management) did not report for work.
He has also referred to the oral evidence of the respondent workman
wherein according to the petitioner’s advocate, workman stated that
he did not report for work after 13.2.2002. In this context it is
necessary to note that according to the respondent, his service was
allegedly terminated with effect from 15.1.2002. Thus, when the
petitioner’s advocate relied on the statement in the oral evidence
made by the respondent workman that he had not gone to report for
work after 13.2.2002, the gap between 15.1.2002 to 13.2.2002 remains
to be explained by the employer. Be that as it may. At this stage it
is not relevant since the learned advocate for the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to allow the
respondent to report for work.
It
is also claimed that since the petitioner’s advocate did not remain
present during the proceedings after particular stage, the subsequent
proceedings were held ex-parte. One of the contentions raised by the
petitioner’s advocate is that in the entire award the labour Court
has not recorded any finding about the provisions of law which,
according to the conclusion of the Court, were violated or can be
said to have been violated by the petitioner company.
3.
Having regard to the said contentions the office is directed to issue
Notice returnable on 16.3.2011.
4.
In the meanwhile the petitioner will reinstate the respondent. The
written intimation by the petitioner company to the respondent by
R.P.A.D. shall be sent at the address available on record of the
company as well as the address mentioned in the title of the award
and if the person was represented by Union then, at the Union’s
address as well with specifically mentioned the name and designation
of the authority, who should be contacted by the respondent workman
while report for work.
5.
In the meanwhile by way of ad-interim relief the direction regarding
payment of backwages will remain stayed until next date of hearing.
6.
Mr. Chaudhary, learned advocate appearing for the respondent has
submitted while opposing the request for stay against the direction
for payment of backwages, submitted that respondent will report for
work on or before 7.3.2011.
(K.M.THAKER,J.)
Suresh*
Top