Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/11515/2009 1/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR DIRECTION No. 11515 of 2009
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 31048 of 2007
=========================================
MODERN
PETROFILS LIMITED - Petitioner(s)
Versus
AJAYKUMAR
TIWARI - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR.VARUN
K.PATEL for Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
1,
MR SUBRAMANIAM IYER for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 28/01/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
Shri V.K.Patel, learned advocate for the applicant.
2. This
application is taken up for appropriate direction as in the main
matter i.e. Special Civil Application No.31048 of 2007, the order and
award of reinstatement is subject matter of challenge and Section 17B
wages were ordered to be paid.
3. On
information it came to the knowledge of the applicant that the
respondent workman is gainfully engaged and hence they sent a letter
on 27.4.2009 calling upon the employee to report for duty without
prejudice to the rights and contentions to which he replied that
first the money outstanding so far be deposited in the Labour Court
as his life is in danger. Unless and until there is a written
assurance by the company for safety he cannot report for duty and
even if such safety assurance is given in writing, he cannot report
unless the outstanding money is deposited in the Court. This letter
was dated 11.6.2009. Thereafter, the company sent another letter on
20.6.2009 refuting the so-called danger expressed by the employee and
calling upon him to report for duty immediately, to which he replied
vide his letter dated 29.6.2009 mentioning that on various dates he
has reported for duty, but he was not taken on duty. Therefore, the
company had to file this application. It is pertinent to note that
the workman’s advocate has placed purshis on 20.11.2009 with a copy
to the learned advocate for the other side as he was instructed by
his client to withdraw his appearance, the Xerox copy of which is to
be filed by the advocate for the applicant on record during the
course of the day.
4. Overall
facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove go to show that there is
some substance in what the applicant has stated on oath before this
Court and in the application. This Court, therefore, issued notice on
24.11.2009 which was made returnable on 21.12.2009. However, till
date no one has appeared on behalf of the workman. The workman is
duly served.
5. In
view of the above, this application requires to be allowed with the
following directions:-
(1) The
petitioner company would have to take the workman on duty if the
workman reports for duty.
(2) The
petitioner applicant company shall have to send a Registered Post
A.D. letter along with copy of this order calling upon the workman to
report for duty. In case the workman does not turn up for duty on the
stipulated date, then the company would be under no obligation to pay
Section 17B wages to the workman concerned.
6. As
this order is passed ex-parte, it is open to the workman to approach
the Court for seeking appropriate relief. This order was required to
be passed as there was absolutely no representation whatsoever from
the workman’s side and the applicant’s averments made in the
application have remained uncontroverted. The application stands
disposed of with the aforesaid direction.
(S.
R. Brahmbhatt, J. )
sudhir
Top