Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/997/2006 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 997 of 2006
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9081 of 1999
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.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 ?
=================================================
G
S R T CORPN - Appellant(s)
Versus
NIRANJAN
BALVANTRAI JOSHI - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
MR HS MUNSHAW for Appellant(s)
: 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
1,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 19/04/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. We
have heard Mr H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel for the appellant. Though
notice has been served on the respondent, no one appears for the
respondent. This Letters Patent Appeal has been
filed challenging the judgment dated 22.7.2005 passed by the learned
Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.9081 of 1999.
2. The brief facts are that
the respondent was appointed on temporary and ad hoc basis with the
appellant. According to the appellant, after the contract period was
over, the respondent did not work with the appellant. However, the
respondent raised industrial dispute and the Labour Court, Rajkot in
Reference (LCR) 116 of 1990 which was later on transferred to Labour
Court, Junagadh and renumbered as Reference (LCJ) No.1563 of 1990.
The Labour Court, by award dated 17.4.1999 allowed the Reference and
reinstated the respondent without backwages. The award was
challenged by way of writ petition. It was urged before the learned
Single Judge that the Reference was made after 11 years and the
respondent was purely and temporarily appointed workman and the
waiting list prepared by the Divisional Selection Committee for the
post of Art-C Mechanic. Name of the respondent was mentioned at
Sr.No. 51. The waiting list was lapsed and only 15 topmost
candidates could be appointed from the waiting list. As the learned
single Judge dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the award of
the Labour Court on the ground that the appellant violated the
provisions of 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, we do not
find any reason to show that the award of the Labour Court was in any
manner illegal. Therefore, we do not find any error in the judgment
of the learned Single Judge.
3. Learned
counsel for the appellant has also filed affidavit dated 7.4.2011
wherein it is mentioned that the respondent was reinstated in
pursuance of the directions of the High Court with effect from
4.8.2000 and he remained absent and the services of the respondent
came to be terminated w.e.f. 24.2.2009. However, in this appeal, we
are concerned with order dated 17.4.1999 only.
4. In the result, this
appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
[V
M SAHAI, J.]
[G
B SHAH, J.]
msp
Top