Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10395/2010 2/ 2 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10395 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
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 ?
=========================================
KHETIWADI
UTPADAN BAZAR SAMITI THROUGH SECRETARY - Petitioner(s)
Versus
NAVNITRAI
MADHAVJI DAVE - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR IS
SUPEHIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 03/09/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India, petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or
order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 25.08.2009
passed by the Controlling Authority in Gratuity Application
No.25/2009 as well as the order dated 31.03.2010 passed by the
Appellate Authority confirming the order passed by the Controlling
Authority by which the petitioner is directed to pay gratuity of
Rs.16,754/- with 10% interest from 01.05.2009.
2. Having
heard Shri Supehia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and considering the orders passed by both the Authorities
below and having found that the respondent worked with the petitioner
for the period between 01.10.2001 to 31.03.2009 without break and
when the petitioner failed to prove that the respondent was appointed
on season basis, it cannot be said that both the authorities below
have committed any error in directing the petitioner to pay the
amount of gratuity to the respondent. There are concurrent findings
given by both the authorities below which are not required to be
interfered by this Court.
3. In
view of the above, there is no substance in the present petition
which deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(M.R.
Shah, J.)
*menon
Top