Gujarat High Court High Court

Ahmedabad vs Narendra on 26 August, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Ahmedabad vs Narendra on 26 August, 2010
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/8085/2004	 1/ 3	JUDGMENT 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8085 of 2004
 

 
 
For
Approval and Signature:  
 
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
 
 
=========================================================

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

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 ?
		
	

 

 
=========================================================

 

AHMEDABAD
MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT SERVICES - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

NARENDRA
S ZAVERI & 5 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
HS MUNSHAW for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 -
6. 
RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 -
6. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 26/08/2010  
 
ORAL JUDGMENT

By
way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and
order of the Labour Court, Ahmedabad dated 18.7.2003 in Recovery
Application No.3301 of 1992
whereby the Labour Court has granted salary on holidays without
considering the defence put forward by the petitioner to give the set
off.

2. The
case of the petitioner is that the respondents were working in the
Internal Audit Department of the petitioner-Transport Service, which
is an essential service and certain Departments like Audit and
Account Departments were required to work on holidays due to the
nature of work. As per Circular No.99 dated 23.3.1987 (Annexure-A)
such staff members were eligible for holiday/set off during next
three years and in fact the respondents had enjoyed the said set off
at the relevant point of time. However, they approached the Labour
Court by way of recovery application praying for the benefit of
overtime. It is the case of the petitioner that without considering
the reply and relevant documents more particularly Circular No.99
dated 23.3.1987 the Labour Court passed an order directing the
petitioner to pay the benefit for the determined period as per the
award delivered by I.G. Thakore.

3. Heard
learned advocate Mr Munshaw for the petitioner.

4. The
Labour Court has committed an error in allowing the application
without adjudication inasmuch as whether holidays are given set off
or not is a matter of evidence. In that view of the matter, the
order of the Labour Court deserves to be quashed and set aside

5. In
the result, the petition is allowed. The judgment and order of the
Labour Court, Ahmedabad dated 18.7.2003 in Recovery Application
No.3301 of 1992 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. No
order as to costs.

(K.S.

JHAVERI, J.)

zgs/-

   

Top