Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1403620/2008 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14036 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
TALUKA
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER - Petitioner(s)
Versus
BHALUJI
SHANKARJI JAGANI - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HS MUNSHAW for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
NILESH M SHAH for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 04/02/2009
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule.
Mr. Nilesh M. Shah, learned advocate waives service of Rule on
behalf of respondent. With consent of learned advocates appearing
for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.
2. The
petitioner has approached this Court against order dated 30th
August, 2008 whereby the application preferred by the petitioner
Taluka Development under Rule 26-A of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 has been rejected. An award dated 21.4.2008 is also under
challenge. Earlier, by impugned award the learned Labour Court
partly allowed Reference (LCB) No. 568 of 1996 directing the
petitioner to reinstate the respondent without benefit of backwages.
It is the case of the petitioner that the said award came to be
passed without considering the submissions/arguments of the present
petitioner inasmuch as at the time of hearing of the submissions of
the contesting parties, the advocate of the petitioner could not
remain present and therefore the submissions and the case of the
petitioner on the basis of evidence on record, could not be
presented and impugned award, therefore, came to be passed after
taking into consideration the submissions only of the respondent.
In such circumstances, Misc. Application No. 23 of 2008 came to be
filed which has been rejected by impugned award. Mr. N.L. Shah for
respondent submitted that earlier also the Reference was decided in
absence of the petitioner and had to be restored at the request of
petitioner and it was for the second time that the petitioner
ignored the proceedings. Mr. Munshaw submitted that if the matter is
remanded only for the limited purpose of hearing the submissions,
since the evidence of both sides is recorded, the petitioner may at
least get opportunity to make submissions before Labour Court and the
Labour Court may pass appropriate order after considering the case of
petitioner. Today, during submissions, a limited consensus between
the parties is arrived at. Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the
respondent submitted that if reasonable cost of Rs. 7,500/- is
awarded and time limit is fixed, then he would not have objection in
respect of petitioner’s request. Considering the said submissions of
Mr. Shah, it is directed that the order dated 30th August,
2008 and the order dated 21.4.2008 are set aside. The award dtd.
21.4.2008 and order dated 30.8.2008 are set aside and the
proceedings of Reference [LCP] No. 568 of 1996[old Reference [lca]
No. 1037/94 are restored. The matter is remanded for hearing of
submissions. The Labour Court shall issue fresh notice of hearing of
arguments of concerned parties. On the date fixed by the Labour
Court the petitioner will not seek any adjournment on any reason. If
the petitioner’s advocate has any inconvenience, then the petitioner
may make alternative arrangement and in any case the adjournment
shall not be requested for by the petitioner. The Labour Court may
try to hear and decide the matter after considering the submissions
of both sides as early as possible and preferably before 15th
April, 2009.
3. The
aforesaid order is passed on condition that the petitioner shall pay
an amount of Rs. 7,500/- [Seven Thousand Five Hundred] towards cost
to the respondent which would not be adjustable.
4. With
the aforesaid clarifications and directions, the petition is disposed
of. Rule is discharged.
[
K.M. Thaker, J. ]
rmr.
Top