Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/955/2003 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 955 of 2003
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
APPOLLO
TYRES LTD. - Petitioner(s)
Versus
RAMESHBHAI
M MALI - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR.VARUN
K.PATEL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR SUBRAMANIAM IYER for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
: 07/10/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1) This
is a petition preferred by petitioner-Company challenging the award
passed by the Labour Court at Vadodara in Reference (L.C.V) No.195 of
1993.
2) The
Labour Court, Vadodara, vide award dated 23rd August 2002,
ordered reinstatement of the respondent-workman with 70% back-wages.
3) Record
reveals that the petitioner-Company appointed the respondent-workman
as a Forklift Operator vide order dated 2nd October 1992
purely on temporary basis for a period of six months commencing from
2nd October 1992. In the appointment letter, it was
clarified that the engagement of the respondent-workman as a
temporary Forklift Operator is purely on temporary and ad-hod basis
and shall be terminated by the management at any time without notice.
4) It
appears that the Company terminated the services of the
respondent-workman on 24th December 1992. This gave rise
to the Industrial Dispute and the Reference.
5) This
matter was heard substantially on 30th September 2011 and
was adjourned for today as it appeared that the dispute could be
resolved amicably on certain terms and conditions. Today when the
matter is taken up for hearing, learned advocate Mr.Patel, appearing
for the petitioner-Company submits that the Company is ready and
willing to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent-workman towards
full and final settlement, by way of compensation provided the
respondent-workman gives up his claim of being reinstated as per the
award passed by the Labour Court.
6) Respondent-workman
is present today in the Court. He has been made to explain about the
proposal of the petitioner-Company, to which the respondent-workman
has agreed.
7) In
light of this consensus arrived at between the parties, further
adjudication of the petition on merits is not necessary. The award
passed by the Labour Court is hereby quashed and set aside.
Petitioner-Company is directed to pay to the respondent-workman a sum
of Rs.50,000/- by way of a demand draft within a period of 10 days
from today. The respondent-workman shall provide his current
residential address to the learned advocate Mr.Patel appearing for
the petitioner-Company so that the petitioner-Company can intimate
the respondent-workman to come and collect the demand draft on a
particular date.
With
these directions, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to
costs. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(J.B.PARDIWALA,J.)
Vahid
Top