Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/14782/2010 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14782 of 2010
=================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Petitioner(s)
Versus
PRATAPBHAI
PITHUBHAI VALA - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance :
MS
MOKSHA THAKKAR ASST. GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR PADMRAJ K JADEJA for
Respondent(s) : 1,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 18/02/2011
ORAL ORDER
Heard
Ms. Thakkar, learned AGP, for the petitioner and Mr. Jadeja, learned
advocate for the respondent.
Ms.
Thakkar, learned AGP, has referred to the statement of claim and the
deposition of the respondent and submitted that the respondent has,
in his statement of claim as well as in his deposition, admitted that
he was working with the petitioner as a daily wager. She further
submitted that either in the statement of claim or during his
deposition, the respondent has not claimed and asserted that he had
put in work for 240 days during his tenure in any span of 12 months.
Despite absence of such assertion and relevant evidence coupled with
the fact that the respondent had not given any application for
production of any document by the petitioner employer, there was no
evidence to establish that the respondent had worked for 240 days in
any span of 12 months and yet the Labour Court has, without
considering the said aspect, directed the petitioner to reinstate the
respondent on the ground that there is breach of Section 25(F) of the
Act. She has also referred to the statement at page-64 showing the
working days of the respondent.
On
perusal of the award, it, prima facie, appears that the said aspect
has not been duly taken into account by the Labour Court before
holding that breach of Section 25(F) was committed while terminating
the service of the petitioner.
Hence,
RULE.
The
prayer for interim relief seeking stay of the implementation of the
impugned award is not granted. It is, however, clarified that the
reinstatement of the respondent will not create any right or equity
in favour of the respondent and it will be subject to the result of
the petition. It would also not be open to the respondent to rely
upon the events, which may take place after reinstatement, pursuant
to the award and/or order of this Court to claim any benefit or
equity and the said subsequent engagement of the respondent will not
be cited by the respondent to claim any benefit, equity or right.
[K.M.Thaker,
J.]
kdc
Top