Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/5836/1999 1/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5836 of 1999
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes
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 ?
=========================================================
MANAGER,
FEDERATION OF COOPERATIVE STORES LIMITED - Petitioner(s)
Versus
RITABEN
WD/O ANILKUMAR J SHAH - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
RD DAVE for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR RA MISHRA for Respondent(s) : 1, 1.2.1,
1.2.2,1.2.3
MR VIKRAM J THAKOR for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 15/07/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1.0 By
way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned
Award dated 26.05.1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Nadiad in Reference (LCN) No. 17 of 1990 whereby the Labour
Court has directed the petitioner to pay backwages from the date of
retrenchment i.e. 08.08.1989 till the respondent obtained Sanad in
year 1994.
2.0 According
to the respondent, he was appointed by Administrator of the
petitioner- Federation illegally and without following the due
requirement. As the Federation was making losses, the charge of
Administration was taken by the Board. The respondent was retrenched
on 30.03.1989 by offering retrenchment compensation. Thereafter, the
respondent filed suit before Board of Nominees and obtained ex-parte
injunction against retrenchment but the same was vacated after
hearing the federation. Another retrenchment order dated 08.08.1989
was passed against respondent along with other workmen by paying
retrenchment compensation notice pay etc., which was refused to
accept by the respondent and he preferred Reference before Labour
Court being Reference ( LCN) No. 17 of 1990. The respondent herein
obtained Sanad and is a practicing advocate in Nadiad since 1994. The
Labour Court ultimately has passed the aforesaid order. Hence, this
petition.
3.0 The
Labour Court has granted only full backwages from the date of
retrenchment i.e. 08.08.1989 till the respondent has obtained Sanad
from the Gujarat State Bar Council in the year 1994.
4.0 Learned
advocate for the petitioner has raised contention that inspite of the
documents produced by the petitioner, the Labour Court has wrongly
granted full backwages to the respondent from the date of
retrenchment till the respondent obtained Sanad for practicing as an
advocate in the year 1994.
5.0 Learned
advocate for the petitioner has also raised contention that findings
of the Labour Court regarding production of seniority list and
retrenchment notice is contrary to the evidence on record.
6.0 Heard
learned advocates for both the parties. There is translation of
original award into English language. The original award and
retrenchment notice dated 08.08.1989 are produced on record. Except
these documents, no other documents are produced on record to take
contrary view from the Labour Court. However, there is seniority
list on record but it is not exhibited. An attempt is made to refer
to evidence of the present respondent before the Labour Court,
however, same is not accepted. The original award which is in
Gujarati language is produced on record. Before proceedings with the
reference, if any authority is desirous to hold that the findings
given by the Labour Court is perverse and contrary to the evidence
on record, those documents are required to be dealt with. But no such
documents are produced on record. Hence, I am of the view that
observation made in para 7 of that award stating that Federation
employer has not made retrenchment on the basis of the seniority list
and no seniority list has been produced is required to be accepted.
It is also observed that as the respondent was permanent employee,
he can be retrenched in view of his seniority. However, no such
documents in that regard were produced. Hence, there is no evidence
on record to take contrary view from the award of the Labour Court.
Hence, it is difficult to take contrary view from the findings of the
Labour Court.
7.0 In
the premises aforesaid, the judgment and award of the Labour Court,
Nadiad dated 26.05.1999 passed in Reference ( L.C.N.) No. 17 of 19990
is just and proper. The petition is devoid of merits and the same is
dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.)
niru*
Top