Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/12832/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12832 of 2010
=================================================
ARVIND
RUB-WEB CONTROLS LIMITED - Petitioner
Versus
ROHIT
VAKHATSINH DARBAR - Respondent
=================================================
Appearance :
MR
NIRAV V JOSHI for Petitioner :
MRPCCHAUDHARI for
Respondent:
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 18/01/2011
ORAL
ORDER
While
issuing rule, this Court (Coram: K.A. Puj, J) on 29/11/2010 recorded
that the advocates were to receive instructions with regard to
amicably settling the matter, and the impugned award was stayed.
Today, both the advocates have indicated that their clients are
offering figure which cannot be reconciled and hence there is no
scope for settling the matter amicably. In view of this, when the
matter is admitted & rule is already issued, the question arises
as to what interim relief during pendency of final adjudication of
the matter.
Learned
advocate Shri Joshi for the petitioner submitted that it was all
along a case of the employer that despite of repeated requests for
resuming duty the workman has not resumed his duty and workman’s
petition arising out of the said award challenging non-granting of
100 % back wages has been dismissed and the judgment is reported.
Relying upon the observations made by this Court in the said
judgment in case of Rohitsinh Vakhatsinh Darbar Vs. Arvind
Rubber-Well Control Ltd, reported in [2010 (126) FLR 1077] it was
contended that the workman on account of complete stay of the award
will be entitled to early idle wages. Whereas the case of the
employer is that they are ready & willing to reinstate the
workman, and in that view of the matter the interim relief be
appropriately couched so that workman may receive employment and his
wages during pendency of the petition.
Shri
Chaudhari, learned advocate appearing for the workman contended that
the workman had been all along interested in working with the
employer / petitioner herein above. Non acceptance of the workman’s
petition by this Court for enhancing wages would in itself not
militate against the workman’s claim flowing from the award
impugned. The workman is ready & willing to work, however
employer has not offered him the work of which the workman had
actually been working. As per submission of Shri Chaudhari, the
workman was Milling Machine Operator, whereas the work offered to
the workman was that of helper. As per the award the workman is to
be reinstated on his original post which he held prior to the date
of his termination.
In
view of the aforesaid rival submissions, I am of the opinion that,
the interim order passed earlier which had been passed pending scope
for settling the dispute amicably, need to be modified
appropriately. The quantum of back wages is therefore stayed and the
award so far as the reinstatement is concerned is not stayed under
the said award. Therefore, now the workman would be entitled to
receive employment on the said post on which he was working prior to
his termination. This Court hasten to add here that this Court has
not pronounced upon the workman’s post which he held prior to the
date of his termination. The controversy with regard to the post
held by the workman prior to his termination is not dealt with by
this Court in this order. It goes without saying that the workman
shall have a right to be reinstated on the post or place which he
was working prior to the date of his termination. Interim relief
earlier granted is modified accordingly.
[
S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ]
/vgn
Top