Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/7736/1998 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7736 of 1998
==============================================================
BARODA
MUNCIPAL CORPORATION - Petitioner(s)
Versus
ANJANABEN
P BHATT - Respondent(s)
==============================================================
Appearance :
MR
PRANAV G DESAI for Petitioner No(s).: 1.
MUKESH H. RATHOD
for Respondent No(s).:
1.
================================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 23/08/2005
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
petitioner has challenged the award dated 19.5.1998 passed by the
Labour Court, Vadodara, in Reference (LCV) No.1054/88 whereby the
petitioner Corporation was directed to reinstate the respondent on
her original post with continuity of service, but without back wages.
2. The
short facts of the case are that the respondent was serving as a
Clerk with the petitioner Corporation. The respondent proceeded on
long leave without prior sanction. In spite of the intimation given
for resuming duty, the respondent did not join duty. The petitioner
Corporation issued show cause notice and ultimately terminated the
services of the respondent. The respondent, therefore, raised a
dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court and the Labour Court
passed the aforesaid award.
3. On
16th April 1999 this Court passed the following order:
Heard
the learned Advoates for respective parties. Rule. Interim relief
in terms of para 10(c) except the workwoman shall be permitted to
report for duty pursuant to the impugned order dated 19.5.1998. Ld.
Advocate Mr. Rathod appearing for the respondent-work woman states
that she shall report for duty within a period of 10 days from
today.??
4. It
is stated that pursuant to the aforesaid order the
respondent-workwoman has already been reinstated and an order in this
regard dated 23.4.1999 passed by the petitioner Corporation is placed
on record. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere the order
of reinstatement at this stage.
5. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order directing that if
the award is not implemented within 30 days the petitioner should pay
interest at the rate of 18% is illegal. On the facts of the case I am
of the opinion that the proceedings before the Labour Court was not a
proceeding under section 33(c)(2) and therefore the Labour Court had
no jurisdiction to pass such order.
6. In
the premises aforesaid, the impugned award qua it directs to pay 18%
penal interest is quashed and set aside. The rest of the award is
confirmed. The respondent shall be entitled for reinstatement with
continuity of service along with other consequential benefits from
the date of publication of the award. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
ar
Top