Gujarat High Court High Court

Appearance: vs The Jurisdictional Parameter In A … on 13 December, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Appearance: vs The Jurisdictional Parameter In A … on 13 December, 2010
Author: J.N.Bhatt,&Nbsp;
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD



     SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 1289 of 1997




     --------------------------------------------------------------
     STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
     KIRTIGIRI I MEGHNATHI
     --------------------------------------------------------------
     Appearance:
          M/S PATEL ADVOCATES for Petitioner


     --------------------------------------------------------------


CORAM : MR.JUSTICE J.N.BHATT
     Date of Order: 11/02/97


ORAL ORDER

In this petition, essentially under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner State of Gujarat
has questioned wrongly the right decision of the Labour
Court. It is really very painful to note that wasteful
expenditure is being incurred for a non-existent dispute
or trivial one, as manifested from the record of the
present petition.

The jurisdictional parameter in a writ petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution is very much
circumscribed. No illegality is pointed out. No
misreading of evidence is spelt out. There is no any
material on record which would even remotely indicate
vulnerability of the impugned award whereby only 15 per
cent of backwages for a period of 10 months is granted as
the reinstatement was done by the petitioner itself even
during the course of pendency of industrial dispute. The
Labour Court has placed reliance on the evidence of the
respondent workman rightly and the petitioner State had
not produced any documentary evidence without assigning
any reasonable ground for non-production thereof.

Having regard to the peculiar facts and special
circumstances emerging from the record of the present
case and limited jurisdictional scope in a petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court has no
hesitation in finding that the impugned award requires no
interference exercising extra-ordinary, equitable,
plenary writ jurisdiction. Therefore, this petition is
required to be rejected at the threshold. Accordingly,
it is rejected at the threshold.

11.2.97.(J.N.Bhatt, J.)
case