Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10077/1994 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10077 of 1994
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
MAFATLAL
PUNJABHAI PRAJAPATI - Petitioner
Versus
INTERCLEAN
REFACTORY AND CERAMICS P LTD - Respondent
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
VM DHOTRE for Petitioner
NOTICE SERVED for
Respondent
MR MB BUCH for
Respondent
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 24/06/2009
ORAL
JUDGMENT
Heard
Shri Dhotre, learned advocate for the petitioner. Though served,
none is present for respondent.
The
petitioner-workman-second party in Reference (LCK) No. 308 of 1988
has assailed the order dated 30.9.1993 passed by the Labour Court
below Exh. 9 allowing the application of the respondent for setting
aside the ex-parte award and restoring the Reference for being heard
on merits and awarded Rs.1000/- by way of costs and the next date of
hearing was fixed for hearing on 9.12.1993.
The
facts in brief deserve to be set out as under.
The
workman at the relevant time working as Head of the Store Department
since 1.7.1986, was terminated as per the say of the workman with
effect from 8.5.1988. He raised industrial disputes, which was
marked to the Competent Court as aforesaid Reference No. (LCK) No.
308 of 1988. The Award was made as on account of some reason, the
advocate for employer respondent could not remain present. The
ex-parte award dated 27.7.1992 was made ordering reinstatement with
full back wages. The respondent employer preferred Misc. Civil
Application No. 40 of 1992 for setting aside the same as the
ex-parte award was passed on account of sickness of advocate of the
respondent employer. Ultimately, after hearing both the sides, the
Court was satisfied that sufficient cause was made out for setting
aside the award and accordingly the ex-parte award was set aside and
matter was restored vide impugned order dated 30.9.1993, which is
subject matter of this petition.
Shri
Dhotre, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that
as could be seen from the observations made by the Court in its
first award, which is said to be ex-parte, in para-8, the Court was
justified in proceedings with the matter as sufficient number of
opportunities was given to the employer to represent its case and
however, the same was not availed, hence the application for closing
purshis was granted, which is produced at Annexure D. Shri
Dhotre, learned advocate submitted that assuming for the sake of
arguments without conceding that ex-parte award would be set aside
only after the costs be imposed and even if this court is inclined
to dismiss this petition, some cost be awarded.
This
Court is unable to accept the submission of Shri Dhotre. The award
impugned has been passed by the Court, wherein, originally an
ex-parte award was passed and the reason for setting aside the
ex-parte award have been cogently recorded as the application on
account of sickness of advocate was denied and the matter was
slatted for orders. This in itself weighed with the Court for
setting aside the ex-parte award. In view of this, cogent findings
the discretion exercised by the Court in restoring the reference and
setting aside the ex-parte award cannot be said to be so perverse
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. So far as costs of
this petition is concerned, at the relevant time, as could be seen
from the impugned order, Rs.1000/- is already awarded, this Court is
therefore of the view that no interference is called for and the
petition is required to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Rule discharged. Interim relief stands vacated forthwith. There
shall be no order as to costs.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
J.)
pallav
Top